This Is Too Much Child Support.

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution posed a remarkable question in today’s metro section: How Much is Too Much Child Support?

To some, the answer is, of course, nothing; to most people, there isn’t a figure too high to be placed on the value of parenting.

I agree that there is not enough money in the world that you could place on parenting—especially single parenting, when done right. However, I also believe that there is such a thing as “too much child support”. The mere fact that the child support system in the United States has become, for many parents, the pseudo-cash rewards program for bringing a child into the world is ridiculous, and it needs to be checked dramatically.

The aforementioned article from the AJC is about a single mother, Diana Gowins , who had an affair with a married, rich man, Florida attorney Willie Gary. The result of the adultery was a set of twins. Gary obligingly agreed to pay the Gowins’ child support—to the tune of $28,000 a month. However, Gary and his lawyers alleged that she wasn’t putting any money toward a trust fund for the children—rather, Gowins was spending it on lavish cruises, clothes, tummy tucks, and private school for her oldest daughter (remember, the $28,000 was for the twins). Therefore, they took it back to court, the court ruled in Gary’s favor (after considering evidence from both sides) and now he pays $5,000 a month, plus health and private school for his twins. Now Gowins is going back to court to have that ruling overturned, and have the $28k/mo payment reinstated.

The article also mentions that Gowins was a former nurse, who now wants to be a stay-at-home mom.

Let’s analyze that for a moment: former nurse turned stay-at-home mom, who lives in a $600,000 home in south Atlanta, who wants $28,000 a month and is going to court to keep it? You do the math.

I know the sentiment that most of you have goes a little something like this:

“Well, he should have known better that to have relations with people other than his wife, so he has to pay for that somehow! And look, it’s not like he hasn’t got the money! He should […everybody sing along with us, now] take care of his responsibility!”

Here’s where I agree: yes, William Gary should not have ever went out on his wife and had twins, let alone a child, let alone sex, with another woman. Yes, he has a responsibility as the birth father to make sure various needs are accommodated. However, is it his responsibility, then, to ensure that the mother, a former nurse (a difficult, yet high-paying career in healthcare), gets to sit there and not work, while collecting $336,000 a year? (Hey, if we’re going to count the man’s money, whose net worth is estimated at $60 million (according to the AJC piece), let’s add up what wanna-be stay-at-home mom’s take is?) I mean, are we to absolve the mother from having any direct financial responsibility whatsoever just because the baby daddy is a negligent fool who just happens to have a lot of money in his wallet, and he can afford to pay for her splendor?

Moreover, let’s cut the crap about the father’s lifestyle, or the grand old “accustomed to a standard of living” excuse. In its plainest form, the man had an extended affair with Gowins, had unprotected sex with a woman that wasn’t his wife, and he wound up with twins. I have not one ounce of sympathy for the dude in this case. As a matter fact, I don’t have consideration for Miss Gowins in this case, either. Think about it: if it’s fair that we would call the man wrong in this case for cheating on his wife, having kids out of wedlock, and generally being stupid, is it not fair to say that the woman is a money-grubbing leech who was looking (and just happened) to hitch her wagon to just the right gravy train? Meanwhile, while Gowins is out on a Fun Ship Cruise with Kathie Lee Gifford, her twins are sitting at home with a babysitter (who probably is being ripped off, money wise) or her kinfolk. Yet she just wants to be a stay-at-home mother, right?

And no, I don’t care that Gray makes a million dollars a month. I mean…he’s a corporate lawyer. That’s his job. He gets compensation for actually doing something. Somehow, a lot of people look at that $1,000,000/month figure and think that justifies Gowins recieving roughly 2.8% of that and doing as she pleases, which means not having to work. Wrong. Of course, it’s easy to make a decision to be a stay-at-home mom when you’re collecting 12 years’ worth of a entry-level workers salary in 365 days. What kind of message does that send to our youth? I translate it this way: find a rich guy, spread em’ wide, wait nine months, and bingo! Jackpot, baby!

Yet in all this debate over who should pay who, who deseves what, etc., no one has dared to mention perhaps the most inportant entity in this case: the twins. When these two are old enough to comprehend what’s going on, they’re bound to have a life full of false expectations, and it’s because their entire existence has been based sqaurely on and about a ridiculous sum of money.

My thinking is that the twins lose in this battle because they have two dimwit parents—one who has little to do with them, and the other that was living in splendor because of them. So don’t give me any of this “kids should live their father’s lifestyle because he’s rich” nonsense. They had a rich parent—their mother, Diana Gowins—who spent every other penny on herself, and did not bother to put that money into a money market account, or a growth fund, or anything that would appreciate a pool of money that they could draw from, except for a mortgage on a $600,000 house that she apparently cannot pay, because $60,000 in child support ain’t $366,000. In a sense, they are living their father’s lifestyle—except their father was smart enough to build up the money he have. He did not just wake up one day with a $60 million net worth. Their mother could have. It’s called getting an accountant and a brokerage firm, Gowins. And just because on one night (or more) they wound up having sex with each other does not mean she’s automatically entitled to a quarter of that person’s estate.

This, and cases like these, is exactly why we need to reform the entire child welfare system. There needs to be some sort of means assessment before judgments are made in court. The only reason why this particular case had the original amount rescinded is that, frankly, he could afford the legal fee to do so. Many people cannot afford to do that. Too many times, the court sets out on an agenda of “making the deadbeat pay” without looking at some of the exorbitant sums of money being demanded by the parents and their lawyers. By enforcing a means assessment, you would cut down on fraud, and force the parent to keep expenditures within reasonable means. Child welfare, in its current state, means absolutely nothing—it’s a cash rewards program, and a whole lot of people treat it that way—especially when you’re getting what people make as a salary in a year every month. Child support is a fraud, becuase in many case, no matter the dollar amount, the money is hardly ever spent wisely, and the courts don’t make it a prerequisite until the other (paying) party calls BS on it. I think we need to make child support less like winning the sex lottery, and more of a system that works to the benefit of the child, like it’s supposed to.

Therefore, my take on this is simply this: William Gary is a dolt playboy, Diana Gowins is a floozy, her twins are headed to a shrink sometime in the near future (not to mention a hard life one way or the other), and a bunch of lawyers wound up with a bunch of cash dealing with the two “adult” morons. Naturally, the lawyers (excluding Gray, of course) win. As if they care what happens to Party A or B? As long as their client’s willing to pay the fee, they win.