Does a child really need $31,000 per month in support???
This sort of stuff makes me happy that I don't have kids...
John Graham Tait struck gold on Bay Street, but his luck ran out in family court.
The Toronto millionaire has been ordered to pay $31,015 in monthly support to his five-year-old daughter - the largest temporary child-support award by a Canadian court.
In making the order, Madam Justice Susan Greer noted that as the 38-year-old man's income "escalated skyward," he stubbornly condemned his former wife's attempt to secure a generous child-support payment as being "nothing more than a means of wealth transfer from him to her.
"He does not seem to understand that child support is no such thing," Judge Greer, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, said in her recent order.
Family law experts have been taken aback by the award. In a commentary in a legal newsletter, Toronto lawyer Philip Epstein termed it, "rather startling; an indication that the courts have lost their way with respect to what is considered to be 'appropriate.' "
posted by GayandRight @ 6:48 PM
4 Comments:
A feminist judge in a family law court. The guy's lucking he came out with his balls intact. If I were him, I'd appeal.
makes 6 million dollars a year and sends his child's mother $350/month to raise her. I bet he spent more on gas for his cars or at restaurants, maybe on shirts for goodness sakes. This guy was/is a putz/jerk, He gentleman is one of those that makes you look bad.
Mind you there has to be a happy medium between 350 bucks and 31 G's per month.
The father made a serious mistake with his stingy initial payments. Nonetheless the current payment system is designed to punish the paying parent. It is completely open ended - there is no upper limit. This gives the custodial spouse incentive to hang on to the kid at all costs.
I know him. The paper was wrong, he had been paying $5,000 per month for the last 18 months or so
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home