Tuesday, February 10, 2009

It was never about the money

A UK paper reports:
Eddie Murphy and ex-Spice Girl Melanie Brown have ended their bitter legal battle with the Hollywood actor being forced to pay out millions of pounds' of child support to their daughter Angel Iris.

Murphy has been ordered to pay £35,000 a month until the 22-month-old girl reaches 18 - a total of about £7million. ...

But a friend of the singer told the News of the World: 'Mel is delighted that the case is over as she just wanted what was right for the girl.

'It was never about the money ...'
That is over $10 million in child support. The mom was already a multi-millionare. If it was never about the money, then why did she sue for so much? That is far more money that anyone would reasonably need to rear a kid. The money is extortion, not child support.

4 comments:

ForeignWomenOnly said...

Nope, it was never about money... it was about money AND spite (and the child was just the pawn used by the woman).

--FWO

Anonymous said...

courts orders are not about large payments, but about formula that they follow to calculate the child support payment, based on income. (you should have known that by now, LOL), and it is mostly by income, you could have lots of money and property (assets), but that does not count that much, what the court looks at is the income... and it is not for ever or till the child is 18, it is till the dad can proof he has lower income with good factual findings. but based on the current factual finding, Eddie Murphy can go out and act in a movie, and afford the payment, so the court order assumes that, and the present expectations of him is to get off his bum, and do the work... so it is no magic there.. that is what law looks at, and judges follow the law.
now is that amount fair??? that is a different story...

Anonymous said...

You are both wrong. The CHILD is entitled to be supported in the style that she would enjoy if her parents had remained married. This is accomplished by moving income from one household to another. In this case, Murphy's house to the nother's. The obvious flaw is that much if not most of the money will be spent by the mother on herself.

As for Angry Dad's comment that the amount is more than what is necessary for the support of a child or anonymous questions about fairness; the amoount is not for mere maintainance, but for maintainance in the style of the marriage. Dad's comment conceals the idea that what he wants is to excape the full implications of fatherhood. Now that Mom is gone he wants to pay the minimum, regardless of how far beyond that his earnings would have benefited his kids.Now that Mom is emarried he wants the new guy to pick up the tab for anyhting over the minimum HIS children

George said...

In my opinion, the "full implications of fatherhood" do not include a $10M payout to a greedy gold digger. Not one penny of that money is even required to be spent on the kid.