Comment by vlovich123 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vlovich123 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I read [1] but I didn’t get the impression that he “minimally” supported his kids, especially since the wife’s appeal was basically largely ruled in his favor. Also, can we talk about how toxic some of the legislation in this area?

> Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.

> child's need is measured by the parents' current station in life.

Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled. Additionally, all we know here are the financial amounts. I don’t think it tells us anything about his qualities as a parent.

As for the lawsuit against a company he held a 20% stake in:

> OptumSoft's CEO Henk Goosen tells us Arista hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain, and hasn't given back all the improvements made to TACC.

I don’t really see where the spitefulness comes in here. Seems like a legitimate contracts dispute. Can you elaborate on where you’re getting this characterization of him personally?

I’m not saying he is or isn’t. I’m just saying a couple of lawsuits tell you nothing about a person and a divorce proceeding rarely gives you a good representation of that person’s behavior as a spouse and parent.

Its not a law designed for billionaires, but rather reflects that people often choose to have kids based on their current and expected future station in life; pulling the plug on that isnt a choice we generally respect.

Raising wealthy kids to be respectable citizens is something many rich people manage to do, but you likely need to be an involved parent to get good results.

(agree with your general points)

> Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled

I think the point is too make sure that kids don’t have a dramatic drop in their quality of life as a result of a divorce which (in my opinion) makes sense

I don't really understand this idea.

I get ensuring basic necessities are taken care of, by why shelter kids from drops in affluence beyond that?

Can you hack this by “losing your job” XX months before getting divorced? How long do you have to go before the lower level of affluence is established?

I am not a lawyer, but based on some horror stories out there, so I doubt it.

It is fairly common for individuals to be assessed support based on "earning potential" earnings. This means that obligations are not reduced if someone changes to a less lucrative, but potentially more fulfilling career, or if they voluntarily retire when they could still be working.

In my opinion, it is pretty twisted when earnings aren't based on a % of variable income.

The real reason is that it makes it easier for courts to decide custody issues.

Should the child go to a poor parent with no criminal record, or a rich parent with a criminal record?

That’s also why courts don’t care too much that divorce usually causes a drop in the standard of living of both parents. It doesn’t make th decision any harder.

As long as the drop in living standard results in equalized poverty, it’s not an issue.

Which is pretty messed up, but that’s divorce.

It can seem pretty crappy when you’re watching a court destroy your standard of living to feed your ex-wife’s drug habit.

I’m happily married, and never divorced. But I’ve seen some things.

So the children an entitled to living a rich man's life?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com