Broncos running back pays for multiple kids

A reader writes that cases like this explain why most white people lack sympathy for deadbeat dads and support draconian measures to collect child support:

Travis Henry just got tackled by a $3,000-a-month child support judgment.

Sure, the Denver Broncos running back has a $25 million contract and a base monthly salary approaching $50,000, but that kind of bill can still crimp your style when you're accustomed to expensive cars and fancy jewelry — and lots of other child support payments.

Southern states and has been ordered by various judges to provide child support for seven of them, according to court records involving one child living in DeKalb County.

DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger this week ordered Henry to provide $3,000 a month for the Lithonia boy he fathered out of wedlock three years ago with Jameshia Beacham, now 29.

Henry isn't the most thrifty guy, according to court records, so the judge wants to ensure payment by establishing an unusual $250,000 trust that Henry must fund by next spring.

Seeliger wrote that the football player displayed "bad judgment in his spending habits," dropping $100,000 for a car and $146,000 for jewelry. Meanwhile, Henry fell behind on support payments for his child with Beacham that were mandated by a previous order. Threatened with jail, he borrowed $9,800 from his former team, the Tennessee Titans, to pay the bill, according to court records.

... Indeed, part of the custody arrangement Henry reached with Beacham requires two weekend visits when he is playing pro ball.

I guess the argument is that Henry is rich and irresponsible, so it is better to take his money away and keep his nine illegitimate kids off welfare.

I am just not sure the courts are solving anything, even in his case. He cannot take the kids on alternate weekends while he is playing professional football. His football career is likely to be over in five years, and he won't have the big bucks anymore. While Henry is squandering his money, the moms may also be squandering the money he pays them. Some of those women may have gotten pregnant deliberately in order to cash in on child support. Bad as this situation is, it may have been made worse by child support laws.

More from the appeals court

Here is the conclusion from the appeals court:

As evidenced by the court's comments on the record, the trial court considered the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties and did not simply ignore George's factual contentions. The attorney's fees order is well-supported, and we find no error in the court's ruling.

The June 20, 2006 attorney's fees order is affirmed.

In other words, the decision is approved because the judge listened to my argument. They don't care if I showed that Miss Gray lied to cheat me out of some money.

Appellate court makes me pay attorney fees

The California court of appeals just rejected my appeal. I had been ordered to pay $10k in attorney fees for my ex-wife, in addition to previous fees.

I appealed because the lawyer, Miss Jennifer J. Gray, filed a sworn declaration in support of the fees that was filled with lies. Even my ex-wife admitted on appeal that Miss Gray lied about the length of time she was on the case.

Jennifer Gray didn't just lie about how long she had been on the case. She lied in nearly every major point of her declaration. She lied about what she did on the case, about what I did, and about what the court did. She lied deliberately, and for the purpose of defrauding me out of money.

I asked Comm. Irwin Joseph for an opportunity to cross-examine Miss Gray. He refused, and awarded her $10k of the $14k she was asking.

Keep in mind that my ex-wife is a lawyer; I am not; she was represented by a lawyer; I was not; and the fees in question were for a losing attempt to gain custody of our two kids.

It still baffles me as to why Comm. Joseph is so eager to order payments to lawyers, even when the lawyer's claims are so totally without merit. He has shown much more interest in paying crooked lawyers than in children seeing their parents.

Man has to pay alimony to lesbian couple

Usually alimony ceases when the recipient remarries, but look at this case:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.

California has a same-sex domestic partnership law that is supposed to be the same as marriage in most respects. I believe that the alimony would even be considered community property to the lesbian couple. The ex-husband should not have to support the lesbian couple.