March 29, 2006

He balked? Nice choice of words. A couple of things: Laurel said Johnson balked last year after she asked the 3-time Cy Young Award winner to buy a truck and computer for Heather and pay for her community college classes, the Daily News said. Just as any father has the right to do, no matter how rich he is. I don't condemn him for this. Johnson then demanded that Laurel return $71,000 in day-care payments and $26,000 in interest because the teen was too old to be in day care, according to legal papers. He's asking for the interest back on the payments. Wow, there's a dick move ... or a Big Unit move. I can't believe Johnson started making payments when the girl was six and this never crossed his mind before? Seems like a retroactive vindictive shot at the family for asking for the extra stuff. Finally, he's seen the girl once in 16 years? I don't give a fuck how screwed up your relationship is with the mother -- you do right by the child. I'm always amazed at how high they can pile crap -- and in this case it's apparently about 6-10.

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:30 PM on March 29, 2006

BTW- I agree the guy should do right by his child - don't mean to suggest otherwise. But it wouldn't be wrong to establish boundaries: it starts with a car and a computer, but then what? Or, perhaps this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of requests the mother has imposed upon Randy. All of which is not to mention the fact that 5K per month is more than enough to raise a young girl, and buy her a car, and a computer, and send her to college, and anything else she might need down the line - assuming the mother is in fact using that money to provide for the child in the first place...

posted by MW12 at 12:40 PM on March 29, 2006

You hear a lot about pro athletes having secret 'love children,' but it's usually kept secret from that athlete's family to save his marriage. But Johnson (slang for dick, by-the-way) says that his family knew about this girl, so what is the reasoning behind him being such a johnson about this whole thing? The old saying goes, "You spend what you make." So what in the hell is he doing being so petty about $750 a month? He's already paying $5,000, what's a few more dollars? Yes you can say, "It's the principle of the whole deal," but come on give me a break! For his sake, maybe we don't know what this woman's background is. For all we know, she could be some druggy who's kept the money from thier daughter this whole time, and he found out. Either that or he is one vindictive son of a bitch.

posted by wingnut4life at 12:45 PM on March 29, 2006

I agree - I'd be careful to assign too much opinion based on this article alone. Shoddy reporting, indeed. Jesus you guys, it's not like MSNBC is the only outlet covering this. http://nydailynews.com/front/story/403993p-342083c.html

posted by jerseygirl at 01:03 PM on March 29, 2006

It just sounds like a bitter mother and daughter to me. I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money. Even at $5000 a month they are better off than most people. Sounds like were trying to get a free ride and since he didn't toss any more money thier way, they decided to give a big sob story to the press to make him look bad. Don't get me wrong, if he is trying to get back $750 a month plus interest, then he really is big unit. On preview: This only came out because Johnson sued her. You may be right, but why two months afterward? "My daughter is 16 and has not been in day care for at least five years," Johnson said in a Feb. 3 affidavit. Maybe he has a legal (but not moral) leg to stand on and the mother is mad she might have to give back the money.

posted by njsk8r20 at 01:29 PM on March 29, 2006

If Roszell (The girls mother) knew that their "love child" heather had no attended daycare in over 5 years why didn't she mentioned anything to Johnson or the Attorney General in her area? If I was over charged on a regular monthly basis on my car payment I would defianatly want my money back!!(I know a car and a child is totally diffrent but just trying to make a quick point)......By the way If I had the money Johnson had I would not have a problem paying 2-3 times that amount...

posted by Grrrlacher at 01:38 PM on March 29, 2006

Let's see; I'm a single mom, late 40's, raising a daughter without a penny of support for the first nine years from her millionaire father who hasn't bothered to see her for 15 years, 11 months, and 29 days. He had to be forced to take responsibility after dodging it for nine years. He's a smart guy, when he figures out she's no longer in day care he can bloody well stop the payments himself. According to most state laws about child support, this jerk is getting off pretty damn easy. If it was all about the money with the mom, she could have put him into jail until he paid for the past due support for the first nine years.

posted by irunfromclones at 02:08 PM on March 29, 2006

I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money. OMG! The greedy bitches! Pathetic.

posted by jerseygirl at 02:16 PM on March 29, 2006

Wow... I haven't seen my father or a dollar from him since I was 3 (im 21) . But gimme a break just because you let a superstar splash off in you doesn't mean you can just milk the guy. I agree with Mr. Frazier ... do right by your kid you snake looking mullet having bastard. But the mom is bitch too. I am about to have my first child and it will take armaggedon to keep me from my baby. Lets not lose sight of whats important at least the girl is eating and going to college. My mom scraped and saved and busted ass and showed me what a work ethic and what a mother and father is.... She didnt cry about receiving 71k for a Day Care? My daycare was 43rd st park and basketball. But i had to be home before son down.. . again major props to wfrazerjr i think he hit the nail on the head

posted by Robb Dubbs at 03:07 PM on March 29, 2006

Here's our card.

posted by njsk8r20 at 03:14 PM on March 29, 2006

We don't have any specifics, so how can you judge the man? I have a relative whose divorced and she was taking the money her husband was giving for child support and giving most of it to her boyfriend who was sending it back to his family in Mexico. She would then go to other family members and tell us that she was having to take the kids out of school because she couldn't afford it. What I'm getting at is you have no idea what kindof woman this is (who the hell cares if she worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab...that makes her a class act?) She could very well be getting exactly what she deserved. If my relative's husband sued her to get back some of the money he gave, some reporter could paint a pretty ugly picture of him too.

posted by bdaddy at 03:17 PM on March 29, 2006

Robb Dubbs- "Splash off" "Snake looking mullet having bastard" Whoa, dude. Don't hold back on us now. Tell us how you really feel. lol Great post. Right on the money. Nothing more need be said...

posted by MW12 at 03:24 PM on March 29, 2006

I just don't know how this woman can be judged to be milking him when he pays her far less than 1% of his income a year. If she is wasting his money on drugs or her Mexican family, then I think a decent father would do more than ask for the money back, don't you think? I have plenty enough information to judge him to be a jerk. It just sounds like a bitter mother and daughter to me. I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money. Even at $5000 a month they are better off than most people. Sounds like were trying to get a free ride and since he didn't toss any more money thier way, they decided to give a big sob story to the press to make him look bad. So, a free ride is a father paying child support now? And, if your father makes $16 million/ year, you are greedy if you want a portion that would put you better off than "most people"? Do you suppose he spends less than 5K a month on his other kids? The utilities on his house probably cost more than the child support he pays.

posted by bperk at 03:35 PM on March 29, 2006

The smoking gun has the court papers.

posted by bperk at 03:45 PM on March 29, 2006

Oh I get it. We don't have specifics on RJ, so shouldn't judge the man, but she very well may be a crack whore sending money to her boyfriend in Afghanistan, so cast a suspicious eye on her. i mean it makes total sense. she was the one who got pregnant jersey.

posted by ninjavshippo at 03:56 PM on March 29, 2006

There seems to be an overwhelming need to blame the woman. I don't read an overwhelming need, I read other potential scenarios. I see an overwhelming need to blame the man, which may be justified but I don't think we know enough about this to throw alot of blame around.

posted by tron7 at 04:08 PM on March 29, 2006

All the money this guy makes and he is gonna put up a stink when asked to buy his DAUGHTER a computer!!! What a guy!!! No wonder he kept her a secret, he doesn't want her.

posted by mariaweber at 04:09 PM on March 29, 2006

If she is wasting his money on drugs or her Mexican family, then I think a decent father would do more than ask for the money back, don't you think? Like move for a modification of the custody agreement, at the very least. If you are there for the conception, then you should be there (at least in legal and financial terms) to support the kid(s) for the rest. And I can pretty much guarantee you (except I'm not sure about California) that the support guidelines amount is a hell of a lot higher than that for his salary. Very interesting too that in those documents it provides that he should contribute towards a fund for her education that will (according to the stipulation) yield $50,000 per year for the first 5 years of her college education. So, his daughter is not a part of his family; mom has sole legal and physical custody of the daughter; there is no contact/relationship between Johnson and the kid; and he comes across as viewing her as a financial burden more than as his child (per his suit for a refund plus the fucking interest)...yeah, he sounds fucking great. You can't view this in terms of you or I or whomever, either. As in: well maybe he wants contact with the kid and so on and so forth. He is fucking rich. He can make whatever he relationship he wants a reality and he could fly her to see him, or whatever, if that is truly what he desired. But what he desires is to not pay mom and not see the kid.

posted by chris2sy at 04:16 PM on March 29, 2006

There is only one proper way for a woman to have a child and that is with a willing participant. I forgot that she raped him. And if you mean "as planned on" by both parents, then there are a hell of a lot of improper children out there.

posted by chris2sy at 04:21 PM on March 29, 2006

So, a free ride is a father paying child support now? And, if your father makes $16 million/ year, you are greedy if you want a portion that would put you better off than "most people"? No, child support is meant to clothe shelter and feed a child. Not buy new cars and computers. What, because her Dad makes $16 million a year, she doesn't have to learn the value of working for the things you want? Studying and getting good grades for a scholarship? Hell, it's even a community college. Buy a friggin bike.

posted by njsk8r20 at 04:23 PM on March 29, 2006

No, child support is meant to clothe shelter and feed a child. No, child support is for everything that a child needs, including a computer, dance lessons, summer camp, and other legitimate expenses.

posted by bperk at 04:31 PM on March 29, 2006

Can you say HOLE!

posted by 7 at 04:33 PM on March 29, 2006

No, child support is for everything that a child needs, including a computer, dance lessons, summer camp, and other legitimate expenses. WOW.....you forgot piano lessons,finishing school, Arabian stallion pony,stock in microsoft,summer home,Bi monthly vacation get aways....did I forget any????

posted by Grrrlacher at 04:37 PM on March 29, 2006

Guess what I found, Bob?

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:42 PM on March 29, 2006

WTF are you talking about? Drugs on her Mexican Family? Are you even reading the post before you reply? I guess everyone in mexico growns and sells drugs...Fuck it let's go ahead and turn it into a Immigration debate whiel where at it......oh and Atheist very well said!! Apparently, you are the one who failed to read the posts before you responded. wingnut mentioned the possibility that she was a druggy and bdaddy knew someone who was sending her child support payments to her family in Mexico.

posted by bperk at 04:46 PM on March 29, 2006

lawrence livermore labs? don't the techie's there make like $40,000+ a year plus 5000 +750 a month? she's makin over a 100 grand a year,and she can't afford to buy her own 16 daughter, a truck? or a new computer? come'on its a cash grab..obviously ,she shagged randy,with out protection,randy's married..and she has sole custody of the girl..she decides when an where, he sees her,not him..she basically rips him off of $71,000,i'd imagine,she violated some contractual terms..so why didn't he find out after 9 years? because he was in canada playing for the expo's, so no judgement could effect him,legally...and i'd imagine there was a paternity case as well..i wonder how many other "ball"players,she's slept with? before randy was the lucky guy to have a daughter...totally smacks of greed ,if you ask me...lady give the 71 grand back,an get lost...

posted by ktown at 05:00 PM on March 29, 2006

The decision to have a baby rests completely with the mother. When a woman chooses to have the baby of a man who is not willing to participate in the childs life, she really needs to take responsibility for the consequences. If women were forced to take full responsibility for that decision especially when the father has made it clear he doesn't want to be a father, the accidental birth rate would be reduced to almost zero. When society eliminates the financial incentive for women to become single mothers, entrap men into marriage or monetary support, then the birth of unwanted children will be reduced substantially. Abortions will occur less frequently because women will be much more carefull in the first place. Men have to be responsible also but lets face it, until a man can force a woman to have an abortion, the ultimate decision always rests with the woman. A woman can always control whether or not she has a baby, if she has one it is because she wanted to. The same cannot be said for the man. Regardless of what kind of idiot Johnson is, at some point it was the woman who made the final decision. I wonder if Johnsons salary or earnings potential had anything to do with hers. I'd say the odd are pretty high.

posted by Atheist at 05:09 PM on March 29, 2006

Atheist - spoken by a man who hates women and God. Or is that the same thing? You speak of that which you have no knowledge of, and only little wit can excuse you.

posted by irunfromclones at 05:20 PM on March 29, 2006

Thank you, bperk.

posted by wingnut4life at 05:24 PM on March 29, 2006

If women and men were forced to take full responsibility for that decision especially when the father or mother has made it clear he or she doesn't want to be a father or mother, the accidental birth rate would be reduced to almost zero. Fixed it.

posted by commander cody at 05:25 PM on March 29, 2006

If you choose to have unprotected sex with a womanizing, cheating on his wife, professional millionaire athlete, You know they were having unprotected sex now? Man, you are all knowing just like Jesus, except without the cool sandals. He wasn't married at the time and was making 70k the year the girl was born, and likely a lot less the year she was conceived and prior to that. What else you got?

posted by jerseygirl at 05:29 PM on March 29, 2006

A woman can always control whether or not she has a baby, if she has one it is because she wanted to. Not true. Accidents happen - ask your mom. Amazing. Simply amazing. Personally I think Randy Johnson is being an asshole. Yeah I understand that he may not want to have anything to do with the child and while it sucks to be the girl, I can see where he'd be coming from. What makes him an asshole is that even though he is making $16 million a year, he still decides to sue the mother of the child that he abandoned for $97k. That to me is just wrong. Wingnut I can't really say it better myself.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:31 PM on March 29, 2006

Men choose to have sex but only a woman can choose to give birth. Did you learn that in 8th grade biology class? Last time I checked, only a woman can give birth, right?

posted by wingnut4life at 05:32 PM on March 29, 2006

Not true, Atheist. Accidents happen As long as people believe that becoming pregnant is some kind of unavoidable accident this kind of thing will continue to happen. FYI there is no such thing as immaculate conception. There is a such thing as ignorance. Resorting to insults is a sign your argument has no validity.

posted by Atheist at 05:34 PM on March 29, 2006

He's suing the mother of his child for less than one-140th of one percent of that amount. Irrelevant. I am not taking the side of Randy Johnson or the Misogyny Brigade, but I will say this: whatever one's impulse might be, if you have accumulated a bunch of dough, you need to draw lines. Most likely, Randy Johnson's agent/ lawyer are the ones who made this call. I don't have an opinion about who is right in this case, but you need to set precedent. I remember following the Ron Perleman divorce case in the Wall Street Journal as a kid (I know) and being amazed: Perleman's ex (I forget which one) had things like a six-figure budget just for annual artwork purchases for the child's welfare. If you don't draw a line, someone else will do it for you. It's not a man/ woman thing. To me, it's a fairness thing.

posted by yerfatma at 05:43 PM on March 29, 2006

I don't have an opinion about who is right in this case, but you need to set precedent. If he's setting a precedent by suing the mother of his child, who would it apply to? Did the Big Unit squirt out a few more unloved children whose mothers need to be put in their place? He ought to set a precedent by doing the right thing by his daughter.

posted by rcade at 05:47 PM on March 29, 2006

CC, this is hardly an 14A equal rights situation. They both made the decision to take the risk of having a child when they did the horizontal mambo. That was the part where they exercised their "equal rights to decide if they want to be a parent." That's the risk you run. Maybe i don't understand your point. is it that you think if the man doesn't want to have the child, that he shouldn't have to pay child support or that the woman should have to have an abortion/adoption?

posted by ninjavshippo at 05:58 PM on March 29, 2006

a woman's right to choose isn't just about an escape valve out of becoming a parent that a man doesn't have. it's about bodily autonomy, in that the govt can't regulate (beyond a certain extent) what someone can do with their own body. to say that a man controls what a woman should do with her body because of his reluctance to accept responsibility for their actions is to subvert the whole bodily autonomy part of a pro-choice perspective. edit: well crap, now i just look silly. thanks jersey ;)

posted by ninjavshippo at 06:04 PM on March 29, 2006

There is something skunkish here.

posted by nate at 06:09 PM on March 29, 2006

Atheist was an Accident. Woops!

posted by 7 at 06:18 PM on March 29, 2006

For the record, I was not an accident....Jack Daniels had a plan for me

posted by FozzFest at 06:20 PM on March 29, 2006

Trust me she played too. She just wants someone else to pay. It's as if you know the details of their sexlife personally...HOLY CRAP, RANDY JOHNSON IS A MEMBER OF SPORTSFILTER! Or, you're the mother.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:32 PM on March 29, 2006

If he's setting a precedent by suing the mother of his child, who would it apply to? A precedent about what he will and won't pay for.

posted by yerfatma at 06:43 PM on March 29, 2006

CC, this is hardly an 14A equal rights situation. They both made the decision to take the risk of having a child when they did the horizontal mambo. That was the part where they exercised their "equal rights to decide if they want to be a parent." That's the risk you run. Maybe i don't understand your point. is it that you think if the man doesn't want to have the child, that he shouldn't have to pay child support or that the woman should have to have an abortion/adoption? He should NOT be able to force her to have an abortion or to put the child up for adoption, but she should not have the right to force him to pay support if he didn't want a child and she wanted to keep it.

posted by commander cody at 06:51 PM on March 29, 2006

That's the point, I would have a choice, the man would not. But he did have the choice. A choice to have sex or not. That was his point of choice.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:00 PM on March 29, 2006

Thanks, fraze. Your link probably sums up this situation as well as anyone. Without getting too philosophical, human relationships are far more complex to leave to tabloid journalists or one dimensional ideologues. But, having said that, there are some seriously fucked up attitudes towards women out there in SpoFi land.

posted by owlhouse at 07:02 PM on March 29, 2006

Interesting talk so far, but have to run until later. supper awaits

posted by commander cody at 07:07 PM on March 29, 2006

Is it between the lady and her Doctor or the lady and the man. I mean who is more important. The Doctor or the man? I think the Baby is.

posted by 7 at 07:12 PM on March 29, 2006

But, having said that, there are some seriously fucked up attitudes towards women out there in SpoFi land. working in family law myself, i regret to inform you that these opinions are much more widespread than you may think. days like these i wish this site was a lot more sports, or if not that, at least a lot more filter.

posted by ninjavshippo at 07:47 PM on March 29, 2006

Thank you wingnut4life.

posted by 7 at 07:56 PM on March 29, 2006

Normally I agree with JG on a lot of things, she and I being fellow diehard Red Sox fans. However, jerseygirl, you are flat dead wrong on this issue. Don't give me some holier than thou "i have a vagina!" mirror-squatting Bettie Friedan shit. Equal rights does mean equal responsibilities: this is a solvable problem, and if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy- even if the guy wanted to be a father, a scenario not often talked about- then she also must be responsibility for ensuring the well-being of that child if she decides to have the child and raise it, against the wishes of the biological father. If the biological father consents to the pregnancy, and/or is in the marriage, he then can't later opt out- once he's agreed to the pregnancy, he's a dad now and forever, and child support as well as some custody arrangement should be the case. This approach makes sense, it is fair, and idiotic cries of "misogyny" make your perspective no more false than it was before. Seriously- you're whole opinion on this is fucked the hell up. If I came here and posted "Women choose to have sex, so if the sluts get pregnant they should live with the consequences, harlots of the old testament that they are. No legal abortion should allowed!", I can assure you your tampax would shoot across the room in rage and anger- because that idea that people are little more than biological factories to be controlled by the state is offensive and medieval for our more enlightened times. I fail to see, JG, how your "You have sex, you must pay the consequences for ever" one-sided bullshit is any different than some fundy pundit or Limbaugh- wannabe ranting about "black inner-city welfare moms squirting out kids cause they can't keep their bon-bon eating, spandex wearing, jerry springer wathing legs shut!". It isn't, they both are about grotesque simplification of our choices in life, and a puritanical desire to control other people's bodies and lives based on your "moral judgments" of how they made bad choices. If you as a woman have a biological quirk that makes you the only gender to be able to bear kids, then yeah- you get special rights on terminating that pregnancy, but also special responsibilities. Most of us realize that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand by the time we're out of high school, but I guess that's not the case with you, jerseygirl. Oh, but go ahead and call me a misogynist. However, I'm pro-choice and pro-responsibility, and deeply resent the stereotypical white male conservative legislator trying to write laws to govern your womb or your body. Whereas you are the one who thinks men should be baby-producing, wallet-opening machines. Maybe we need a child-support sequel to "The Handmaiden's Tale" to get through to you, JG?

posted by hincandenza at 08:04 PM on March 29, 2006

If the biological father consents to the pregnancy, and/or is in the marriage, he then can't later opt out- once he's agreed to the pregnancy, he's a dad now and forever, and child support as well as some custody arrangement should be the case. This approach makes sense, it is fair, and idiotic cries of "misogyny" make your perspective no more false than it was before. huh? hal, i read your post three times and couldn't find a point to it. you're against child support, or you're like CC and are pro a man's right to an abortion? both? i know you want to holler and yell like everyone else, but succinct and to the point works just as well.

posted by ninjavshippo at 08:14 PM on March 29, 2006

Now, regarding this case: we really don't know the facts behind the pregnancy. The girl was apparently conceived in 1989/90, so he wasn't making millions although I imagine the fact that he was a regular starting pitcher even in 1989, albeit at the league minimum rate, plus any contract and signing bonus he had, suggests he was a likely candidate to be a millionaire. However, I doubt this was a gold-digging case at the time: it doesn't sound like she was a stripper milking some dumb-as-dirt meathead out of his future earnings, but a professional in her own right- and the details of this child support is surprisingly low-level in terms of monthly payments for Randy Johnson; I'd be more appreciative if I were him that you weren't bilked out of $50,000 a month instead. It's also not entirely clear whether it was a mutual decision to have them be separated and her raise the child, with some child support, or if he insisted on being out of the child's life against her protests, but the fact remains that it sounds like this was the case from the beginning. $5k a month from 9-16 is a tidy sum (pre-tax that's almost half a million dollars over about 8 years) to supplement any single mom's income, especially when it's guaranteed to be paid out for the full length. It really is like winning one of the lower-level lotteries. Child support, even from a millionaire, shouldn't mean "never have to work again, live in the lap of luxury", and I think kudos to the mom for not treating it like that for the most part. The mom seems surprisingly ungreedy, given that the child support wasn't started until the daughter was 9, by which point he was a multi-multi-millionaire from the Mariners, an All-Star and Cy Young winner, and had just signed a $53m contract with Arizona... she could have asked for and possibly gotten Bonds' level money in paternity/alimony. So for that reason, I think Johnson is an ass for pitching a fit about this- it's not worth the time, energy, publicity, or lawyer's fees. Yes, in principle I think he shouldn't have to pay anything unless he was in support of the child at first, and only later decided he didn't want to be a dad... and I believe that it's silly to say he owes more just because he can pay more. It reduces child support to nothing more than a lotto ticket. What, if Randy Johnson wasn't the star pitcher he is, should the Lottery commission of the state of Washington buy a car for the daughter? That said, in practice I think Johnson is an ass for suing her, and the wise course would have been to meet and say "Look, I'm fine with child support, it's not a burden on me, but I don't want this to turn into some free-for-all. Let's compromise." Then again, maybe he did and she demanded even more, or maybe his lawyers talked him out of it, or something. But it's silly for him to sue over what's a paltry amount in anything but in principle, and he should have just bought the car and paid for school, or considered working out a lump sum payment now that would end all financial obligation and ties forever. For the amount he has, the real value of that money is being able to buy a simple, quick solution to problems like these- namely, offer them $250k or something to end all obligation, cover the remaining 2 years of child support, and be done with it, quietly. I think there was some talk of setting up an annuity fund for the daughter that would be sizeable, so again it's not clear if he's actually reacting in anger to what he perceives as a sudden and greedy increase in demands by the mother, what he perceives as "she's trying to get any last cash from me that she can before the gravy train turns 18". So he's probably reacting from emotion and possibly misplaced emotion, or maybe it's really his own wife that is telling him out of anger/jealousy/spite to not give a penny more, etc. There's a lot we don't know, but I think we can safely say that RJ is penny-wise and pound foolish to be tabloid fodder for a measly $97k- a lot of money to people who aren't Randy Johnson, but a pittance for someone like him to absorb if it brings ultimately peace of mind and a lack of negative publicity.

posted by hincandenza at 08:22 PM on March 29, 2006

Hal, that was awesome. Thank you.

posted by wingnut4life at 08:56 PM on March 29, 2006

well i don't agree with you hal, but that's fine. i'm more on the side of personal responsibility at the moment of coitus, but we can disagree about that and still be friends. that is, until you hear me say that the A's get the wild card this year and not your bosox.. ;)

posted by ninjavshippo at 09:29 PM on March 29, 2006

Thank you Hal, you explained my case better then I, esp in case number 1. That was exactly the point I was trying to make about child support and responsibility of both parties.

posted by commander cody at 09:47 PM on March 29, 2006

For example, he can't have a mid-life crisis, and wish to suddenly get to know his 16-year-old daughter- DNA or no, he'd be seen as no different than any other middle-aged weirdo trying to befriend any sixteen year old girl he doesn't know. You mean teenaged girls will think you're a weirdo if you try to get to know them during your mid-life crisis? Damn, that's why buying the Porsche didn't work! Guess I should have listened to the wife on that too.

posted by commander cody at 09:55 PM on March 29, 2006

Wow, who would have thought that this would be the post that blew sportsfilter apart. Okay, let's have at it. Yes, this makes Johnson look really petty, at best, and kind of a jerk. Despite all this, we don't know the full details, so it's difficult for us to make any definitive judgement on the man. With that being said, that post by athiest was single-handedly the dumbest, most insulting thing I have read on the internet in years, and, to quote "Billy Madison," we're all dumber for hearing it.

posted by uglatto at 10:00 PM on March 29, 2006

Well, with this as my very first post, I suppose I won't be welcomed back anytime soon, BUT....I happen to agree with Atheist. Woman make all the decisions when it comes to parenthood. Sure, ole Randy obviously isn't as pure as the driven snow, but why are we blasting him for not seeing this child? Maybe he doesn't want to. What's so terrible about that? Not everyone wants to be a parent...should they be denied the right to have and enjoy sex just because they don't want kids? If that's the case, then sterile people and pregnant women are no longer allowed to get laid!!!!

posted by Holly1225 at 11:49 PM on March 29, 2006

Wait! I think I saw the horse's tail move. "John Boy, you awake"? The reality is that a child exsists. He had sex with this woman and a child was born. Happens everyday. Some wanted, some not. Man up and have a relationship with your child. I think the best thing he could do for her is invest in plastic surgery not a truck or computer. Can you imagine what this poor girl looks like if she got any of his genes. WOW! A face only a drunken sailor could love, then knock up and then ship out never to be heard from again.

posted by Sailor at 12:18 AM on March 30, 2006

I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money Me being a single mother myself has said plenty of times my childrens father was paying enough money and this m f only had to pay 25 bucks every 2 wks and he still did not pay and every dime went on his only son my problem is not the money because i dont rely on a man to support me or my children but all i wanted my ex to do is visit and spend time and he hasnt done that so here is a woman who has said whatever u send is enough.

posted by W8tinOnLove at 01:20 AM on March 30, 2006

It takes two to make a child if he didn't want one he should have put a helmut on his soldier.He needs to be a man and have a relationship with his daughter. C'mon a truck and a PC. What's that 25 30 Thousand out of his 16mil a year. What a P O S he is.

posted by MisterE at 01:55 AM on March 30, 2006

Thanks for that nasty little visual you put into my head, yerfatma. EEEEEEEEEEE-OOOOOOOO!

posted by wingnut4life at 07:42 AM on March 30, 2006

Why does eveything have to be applied to a universal standard? I mean really, can we not be remotely human about this? Johnson is suing over a pittance for a daughter he has had nothing to do with. Any way you slice it - that's shitty. It's not complicated. He may have a legal leg to stand on on but he has no moral authority in this case. He is a shit. Case closed. And I pity you poor fuckers who find blame with a woman who has basically done all that you would ask of someone in her position. She raised the kid with regular ol' support from Johnson and hasn't seemed to demand anything at all that could be remotely construed as irrational. It's pathetic. And there is no 'equality' in propogating the species. There shouldn't be. Women are more important. More is expected of them - biologically and socially. Men are inferior - it's remarkably obvious, both in concept and execution. Stop pretending otherwise.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:28 AM on March 30, 2006

Well it seems some people can't handle an open discussion or respect the valid arguments contrary to their own. For the record Jersey Girl. I come from a loving family and place family above everything else. I spent over $50,000 on an attorney to successfully gain custody of my 2year old son. Who I raised and is now 22. I am married to a beautiful woman and have an 8 year old step daughter who I love and raise as my own. Her biological father pays nothing. I think Randy Johnson is a jerk not because he doesn't want to be a father but because he is suing over money that to him is probably meaningless. Because he is traumatizing a young woman over what is essentially pocket change to him/ He is probably spending more on attorneys than the stupid truck and computer will cost. All of that aside, I am a firm believer in equality and choice. Until we as a society are willing to look at the root cause of unwanted children, separate sex from procreation, and stop allowing women from using pregnancy fraud to trap men into 18 years of salvery and servitude, this scenario will play itself out over and over. As the father of a 22 year son, I don't want him held hostage to the whims of an emotionally deficient girl for making the mistake of having sex with the wrong person. If you drink and drive in most states even if it results in a death the penalty is not as sever as impregnating the wrong woman. Nor is the fine or jail time for most felonies. The only reason woman are so enraged by the suggestion that a man should have as much choice as they do, is obvious MONEY. I don't think we should be able to force a woman to do anything she doesn't want. I just believe it works both ways. If she knows we do not want to be fathers, the law should protect us from being forced to. Plenty of men have become fathers due to fraud, and deceit. Women should just have to make their own choice without being able to hold a gun to the head of the man. HAL's suggestion make perfect legal sense. The only reason it won't ever work is women do not want equality, the want everything, and they want it their way. Sorry girls the truth hurts.

posted by Atheist at 10:52 AM on March 30, 2006

grrrlacher, that's even better than the "Dead Horse Summit" sign. That particular graphic should be available on the tool bar along with the bold, italic, and link buttons. ps. I liked your train-wreck picture too, wfrazerjr.

posted by dyams at 11:56 AM on March 30, 2006

Can I poke at it too? Atheist, you can not claim to be part of an "open discussion" with "valid arguments" when your first entry ("Any woman insisting on having the baby of a millionaire who has no intention of being involved in the childs life is a money grubbing selfish bitch.") was inflammatory and factually incorrect. Atheist and Hal, your point of view is now clear enough: you believe there is unfairness in the fact that women can choose to have or not have a baby against its father's will, and that the law should provide a similar exit for the father. Great. Understood. Highly debatable, but I'm not getting into that. The problem is that you're using Randy Johnson's situation, which we know almost nothing of, to push your agenda. This is out of line, and will not further your cause in any way. As jerseygirl said, there are lobby groups you can get involved with in order to be more effective. Also, both of you entered this discussion by blasting away at a woman. And both of you made references to condom tampering by women. It gives me the impression that you have, um, issues that are not solvable by the kind of discussions we have here. I say this in the most helpful way possible, really.

posted by qbert72 at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2006

grrrlacher, that's even better than the "Dead Horse Summit" sign. That particular graphic should be available on the tool bar along with the bold, italic, and link buttons. ps. I liked your train-wreck picture too, wfrazerjr. Couldn't agree more, on both counts.

posted by commander cody at 12:42 PM on March 30, 2006

I cannot believe some of the things I've heard in here. I may be a Yankee fan but I'm a human being first. Johnson is being a jerkoff. I don't care if we don't have all the facts. Some of the women bashing comments in here are blowing my mind. I have a son from a relationship when I was younger. His sperm donor is a piece of crap. I have watched my son be upset by empty promises on his part. Promises to be there and be a part of his life. Seeing your child happy is more important then any child support. Seeing your child loved by both parents is more important then any amount of money. I get a whole $200 a month WHEN he has a job. But I also pay more then that in daycare and counseling and sports. I have tried to give him a way out I have asked him to sign his rights over to my husband. My feeling is if he's not responsible enough to raise him or sign him over to someone who is. And if he's not willing to he damn well better pay for him. My husband and I have been doing the hard working in raising a responsible son. If I ever heard him speak the way most of you are I would be so disgusted and disappointed in him. As I'm sure your mothers would be.

posted by jtrluva at 12:53 PM on March 30, 2006

Jerseygirl:There seems to be an overwhelming need to blame the woman. Me:I don't read an overwhelming need, I read other potential scenarios. I see an overwhelming need to blame the man, Ok, can I retract this statement? I thought this thread would get carried away beating up on Johnson a bit too much but then it took a brutal turn thanks to atheist.

posted by tron7 at 01:07 PM on March 30, 2006

OK, I give up. T_B_H or wingnut, cue the nice big cup. It's long overdue.

posted by qbert72 at 01:24 PM on March 30, 2006

Men and women are responsible for birth control. Both. Not one or the other, but both. Sounds nice in theory but I think I will teach my daughter that young men may not all be trustworthy. That they do not take sexually responsibility as seriously as they should. That she should control her own destiny by ensuring she doesn't become pregnant until she is established in her life and happily married. I will teach her to let nothing stand in the way of her achieving her goals careerwise and family wise. She will learn how to be independent, strong and how not to let her life get dictated to her by some jerk looking to get his rocks off. She will earn the respect of others best by making wise choices and planning not by living her life by accident. I'm sorry but in this day and age there is no such thing as accidental pregnancy. It is only pregnancy by negligence, default, or deceit. Giving birth is a more willfull choice ever since Roe vs. Wade. Women fought for the right to choose, I mearly suggest they choose wisely. Because when they don't they blame the irresponsible jerk they chose. Even if he does pay money, it never makes up for the lack of a father the kid has to endure.

posted by Atheist at 02:53 PM on March 30, 2006

They probably would be more careful if there wasn't a monetary incentive. What monetary incentive? The average child support in the U.S. is $350 a month. That statement only addresses your life and is typically made by someone that has accomplished little else. Stop finding new ways to be an asshole. All I said was that getting married and having kids was the greatest experience of my life; I didn't pass judgment on anyone else's. My comment was no different than your remark that "I come from a loving family and place family above everything else."

posted by rcade at 03:15 PM on March 30, 2006

The ol' Eve made Adam eat the apple. i guess i heard about original sin. i heard the dude blamed the chick. i heard the chick blamed the snake. i heard they were naked when they got busted. i heard things ain't been the same since.

posted by yerfatma at 03:45 PM on March 30, 2006

I'll take that as an answer to my question. It seems for you it is less about the reasonable supporting of a child and more about inflicting punishment on the quote millionaire dad.

posted by Atheist at 04:27 PM on March 30, 2006

Atheist there are times where the woman who is having sex thinks their partner is going to be with them for life and doesn't think he is going to be an ass by walking out. It says that Johnson is suing his former girlfriend. Who is to know what their relationship and relationships for people who have the father walk out is like? Sometimes it may be easy to tell that they won't give a damn about their child, but other times the woman doesn't even see it coming. I believe in child support but where does child support end and punative payment begin? I think it ends when the child in question finds someone they can call dad, someone who actually cares more than the person who walked right out of their life and ignores them when they try to make contact.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:26 PM on March 30, 2006

posted by wingnut4life at 08:26 AM on March 31, 2006