Sunday, January 24, 2010

Bristol Palin demands kid and money

AP reports from Alaska:
Sarah Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol, is seeking child support from the young man who fathered her 1-year-old son.

Documents filed Thursday in Superior Court in Palmer show Bristol Palin is seeking $1,750 a month from 19-year-old Levi Johnston, her former fiance. Their son, Tripp, was born in December 2008.

Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein said Alaska law makes clear that a parent of a child is obligated to provide support.

"It is unfortunate Bristol has to seek court intervention in this regard," Van Flein said.

The details regarding child support come at the same time Bristol is seeking full custody of the baby. She filed a petition for sole custody in early November.

Johnston at the very least wants joint custody, said Rex Butler, Johnston's lawyer.
It is outrageous that Palin is asking for child support. This is just a form of welfare fraud, in my opinion. She is driving a $60k car and living with her wealthy parents, and does not need the money. What she needs is a father for her son. And that she is

Levi is seeking joint custody, and Bristol refuses. There is no reason to think that he is unfit. No more than she is unfit, anyway.

Many of the worst ills in our society are caused by single moms like Bristol Palin who do not let fathers even visit their children.

TMZ has his story:
Levi Johnston is baffled at Bristol Palin's demand for child support, because he's offered her money in the past but she hasn't taken it -- this, according to Levi's lawyer.

Attorney Rex Butler tells TMZ, Levi has told Bristol on several occasions he wanted her to come to his house to pick up checks for Tripp's support. Butler says Levi also told her "it would be nice" if she brought Tripp along when she picked up the checks, because Levi wanted to spend time with his son. Butler says on each occasion Bristol was a no-show.

Butler says Bristol is partly to blame for the fact that she hasn't gotten the support she wants. Butler tells TMZ on one occasion Levi was prepared to hand over $3,000 ... but Bristol never showed.
I hate to say this, but the law favors Bristol in this situation. The more she mistreats her son by depriving him of a father, the more she is entitled to welfare and child support. Levi has to pay regardless of how much Bristol violates court orders and punishes her child for her own selfish profit. That is how the system works.

I am surprised that Sarah Palin is going along with this. She made millions from her book deal, and has a political image to worry about. I thought that she was in favor of policies that support self-sufficiency and parental rights. And yet she supports Bristol in her effort to cut a boy off from her father just in order to dishonestly collect a few thousand dollars in undeserved benefits.


Dan Brewington said...

The child of Bristol and Levi was destine for drama well before he was born. The two young parents to be were thrust into the national spotlight when Sarah Palin signed on to run with John McCain. Unfortunately this custody story has the components to stay in the news. When I saw the story on the net, I asked "Why?"

Setting aside who's right or who's wrong, why would the Palin family want this kind of attention? Sarah Palin clashed with the entertainment world because her children were put into the media spotlight. Why would she invite the media to continue to publicize her child and grandchild? In an effort to collect $20,000 dollars a year in support, the Palin's will have to spend a $100,000 dollars in legal fees and PR consulting, not to mention that Levi may be the most dangerous person to Sarah's political career.

My philosophy is that if people, with the financial means,want to have sole "ownership" of their children, they should have to pick up the tab. As long as it is financially rewarding to have the children a majority of the time, there is added incentive for parents to fight against the other parent's time with the children. The world and the grandchild of Sarah Palin would be better off if this story would just go away.

George said...

Yes. Levi is not going away. He will continue to be the living that the Palins are greedy and selfish. Everyone will know that they sold out their baby's future for a mere $20k.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, my back of the envelope calculations show that 20K/year in TAX FREE income will pay off that initial investment of 100K for lawyers/PR/other assorted vermin in just 5 years. Levi will be on the hook until the child is at least 18 so that's what, 12 years worth of payments, even more when his income is adjusted, mother makes yet more financial demands, etc. I'd call that a pretty good ROI. And since it's obvious she's exhibiting immature and spiteful behavior, having complete legal control of the child? Well, that's priceless for her. Suffer the little children........

Dan Brewington said...

If you put that initial 100K into some kind of account that drew an annual compound interest @5% (if I used the correct online calculator), over the course of 18 years, it would amount to $240K. If she collects $20,000 for 18 years minus the 100K, she would get about $260K. This is one of the biggest problems in divorce and custody. My ex probably spent $15K trying to get 7K worth of household items that I would have given her if she would have attempted to settle things privately. She ran up $50K of attorneys fees in the divorce. Rather that have a speedy divorce, she had the custom cut window blinds from Home Depot appraised. The 8 blinds cost $30 when they were originally purchased and cut to fit the windows in the rental house we lived in. At the end of my divorce I would have given her almost everything except exclusive rights to the children. People are willing to throw away a few years of their lives for DVD collections or bedroom furniture. There should be two separate trials in a divorce. One for the dissolution and property, and one for the children. That would keep parents from using parenting time to barter for dining room furniture. Being a responsible father doesn't begin with being about to write a weekly check to pay for a kid, it starts with being able to play a physical role in raising a child. I hope the best for the kid but it's not looking good. Grandma Johnston is a convicted drug dealer, daddy is a centerfold, Grandma Palin is making millions, Grandpa Palin wants Alaska to succeed from the Union and mommy is risking Grandma's political future by getting into a pissing match with the person who presents the greatest risk to the Palin family. I'm just rambling now. I am embarrassed that I wasted so much time talking about this.

George said...

Grandma Palin can make $50k in one speech. But how will she answer when asked, "why are you preventing your grandson from seeing his father?"

Anonymous said...

actually Dan it wasn't a waste of your time, very enlightening actually since I don't know the whole story. But I hear your frustration at the whole thing, you and George are hitting these things on the head. Illustrative of what so many of us are going through, really, except all in the tabloids.

While you correctly point out that the 100K could have been invested more wisely, one must remember vindictiveness as a dividend of the current entitlement mentality addling so many of these well to do American princesses makes it imperitive that the 100K is spent to humiliate and control the dad. It's their version of fun, no doubt egged on by a lot of lawyers and other parasites who stand to profit from it all. What's that great biblical quote, what profiteth a man if he gains the world but loses his soul? Bet the lost and found for souls is in serious need of some remodelling and expansion with all that's happening in family law.