View Single Post
Old 04-30-2009, 02:13 PM   #4
mykalberta
Franchise Player
 
mykalberta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403 View Post
I don't even know if a prenup would mean anything here. It seems like both courts have pretty much disregarded all sanity. A prenup wouldn't even contemplate these disguised child support payments because the kids didn't exist.

It's absolutely mind boggling that any judge could look at the facts here and come to this conclusion, either there are some details absent or somebody got some splainin to do.
A prenup would have definatley at least showed what he is owed. Because there is none, then you let an imperfect court and activist judge system to decide your destiny.

Likely they have the often common "feel sorry for the single mother" syndrome which is unfortunately common these days as it "takes 2 to tango".

The article isnt the most clear. I had assumed that the judge arbitrarily decided to lump his future payments into one large one to compensate for the mothers circumstances. Still mondboggling unfair but who said justice was fair.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
mykalberta is offline   Reply With Quote