• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

No way, kid, I won’t pay says Diddy

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state?

THE fathers’ rights movement has found a new champion in the hip-hop music tycoon Sean “P Diddy” Combs, who is battling to overturn record child support payments for his eldest son on the grounds that the boy will be spoilt by so much money.

Combs is appealing against a court order to pay more than $250,000 (£137,000) a year for 11-year-old Justin, his son by his childhood sweetheart Misa Hylton-Brim. He claims the size of the award — the highest ever made in New York state — will not only spoil the boy but indulge the mother.

“This is not about the money. This is about me as a father,” Combs said. “My child is being used. There is a scam that is going on.”

Hylton-Brim previously received just over $5,000 (£2,750) a month in child support, but Combs topped that up by also funding school fees, medical bills and holidays.

Most stars shrink from publicity when custody and child support arrangements are at stake, but Combs is determined to speak out. He believes celebrities are being made to pay more than wealthy, lesser-known business tycoons.

“It’s a personal thing with Sean,” said a source close to the singer. “He feels celebrities are being taken advantage of.”

The 35-year-old, white-suited music mogul has met his match in Brett Kimmel, the lawyer representing his ex- girlfriend. He helped the Brazilian model Luciana Morad in her battle with Mick Jagger for $35,000-a-month child support for her six-year-old son Lucas. Jagger was forced to take a DNA test and settled for an undisclosed sum.

Kimmel also represented Koo Stark, Prince Andrew’s former girlfriend, in her battle with the American millionaire Warren Walker over support for their daughter Tatiana.

The softly spoken but hard-hitting lawyer has been described as the “pit bull of paternity suits”. In one face-to-face meeting, Combs got so angry that he is said to have lunged at Kimmel across a table.

“I actually think he should pay more, but the court has determined what’s appropriate,” said Kimmel. “Whether he is happy or not isn’t relevant.”

Combs lost his own father in a drug-related shooting at the age of three. His mother worked double shifts to help him through school and college and instilled in him the importance of good parenting.

“If anything, (Justin) has too much,” Combs told the New York Daily News. “It’s whatever he needs and above. He goes to the best private schools. He gets a tutor five days a week. He does every extracurricular activity. I bring him to St Tropez.”

Kimmel does not question Combs’s involvement as a father, but said: “It doesn’t matter if he has paid money in the past or intends to in the future. The mother should never be beholden to him.”

Hylton-Brim is aggrieved because Combs is paying $12,000 (£6,600) a month to Kim Porter, the mother of his second son, Christian, 7 — though Porter pays school fees out of that sum. Combs split up with Porter when he began dating the Hollywood star Jennifer Lopez, but is now living with her again.

Hylton-Brim said: “I didn’t think it would come to this and that Sean would fight me on this, because he didn’t fight Kim Porter.”

Combs claims Hylton-Brim intends to support her other children with his money.

“I’ll always love her, she was my high school sweetheart,” he said. “But she did this two months after she separated from her husband. She didn’t do it when Justin was seven, eight or nine. Why not then?” Combs’s protest has won sympathy from fathers’ rights representatives, who say courts are biased against fathers.

“You can’t say a child needs $250,000. It’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Lowell Jaks of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights.

“It eats at the inside of you that the only worth you have is your wallet. He’s hurt that his fatherhood is being challenged. I’m glad he’s speaking out about it, like Bob Geldof did in Britain.”

Geldof has spoken out against the way he was dealt with when he fought a custody battle with Paula Yates, his late wife: “The way that the law treated me and men in general was with contempt. It was humiliating.”

Kimmel retorted that for all Combs’s injured feelings, he was enjoying the publicity. “He doesn’t mind at all that he’s having to give the highest award in New York state. It’s like a badge he wears.”

Yet even Kimmel once admitted that having a child by a celebrity was an attractive prospect. “Sometimes I’ve thought of having a uterus implanted in my body and trying it out. Imagine $120,000-a-year tax free, just because you had a baby.”

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
 


genivieve

Member
GothicAngel said:
“Sometimes I’ve thought of having a uterus implanted in my body and trying it out. Imagine $120,000-a-year tax free, just because you had a baby.”

:eek: gee....... another man who is starting to think like a woman.
 
stealth2 said:
Let's face it - that's an obscene amount for child support.

Couldn't agree with you more.

The thing is that the mother is supposed to contribute to the well-being of the child too. If the father is paying $250,000/yr, how much is the mother really contributing?
 
Don't be silly. She's contributing to the child's new house, swimming pool, car, clothing, etc. :D

Actually, I heard this woman makes a 3 figure income as a hairstylist. I can't figure out what suddenly made her decided she needed more money??
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I agree that's obscenely high....but he also makes an obscene amount of money. I read about this story months ago, and I wish I could remember how much it was....I am thinking that its 30 million a year...but it could be higher than that.

Therefore 250,000 is truly a drop in the bucket for him.....and he does pay a lot more in support for his other child. Why should this one get less?

Lets scale it down to make it more understandable. If his income was 30k a year instead of 30 million...it would be equivalent to 250.00 a year.
 
Yeah, but just because it is a drop in the bucket is not an excuse to say that that kid needs more than the rest of the kids on this earth. So he makes more money than us. Big deal. Who cares? Let the man spend his money how he wants to, so long as he is providing well for his kids (which it looks like he is.)

It's not like the kid is living in a poor house at moms and she needs to get more money to give him a better home. She makes alot of money too!
 
You also have to think about how long is he going to be making this kind of money? Yes, he has his hands in this & that, but restaurants will close, clothing lines can go belly up along with his record career. I hope that everyone involved is looking at the future & saving some of the money.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
LDiJ said:
Therefore 250,000 is truly a drop in the bucket for him.....and he does pay a lot more in support for his other child. Why should this one get less?

Oh really?

GothicAngel said:
Hylton-Brim is aggrieved because Combs is paying $12,000 (£6,600) a month to Kim Porter, the mother of his second son, Christian, 7 — though Porter pays school fees out of that sum. Combs split up with Porter when he began dating the Hollywood star Jennifer Lopez, but is now living with her again.

12,000 x 12 = $144,000 < $250,000
 
LdiJ said:
Therefore 250,000 is truly a drop in the bucket for him.....and he does pay a lot more in support for his other child. Why should this one get less?

The 2nd mother got more per month because she was paying for the child's schooling while he was paying the schooling on the 1st child.
 

whyUcryin

Member
She's asking for more money now because she's going through a divorce with her second husband! She's pobably not pissed because he's with another girl! Come on, he's probably ALWAYS with another girl! Get real people!!
 

nextwife

Senior Member
There SHOULD be a cap. Beyond a certain point, a child could not possibly "want" for anything! And it is a falacy that well to do wealthy people in intact families (especially in the kind of career where the income could dissappear tomorrow) spend a straight 20% or some fixed percentage directly on their kid. The RESPONSIBLE ones are placing money into investments, endowments, trust funds etc and not just living for NOW. Just because one has money does not mean they MUST spend X amount of dollars. I'm not wealthy, and I stash away a good percentage toward retirement and other investments (for that "rainy day), my daughter's college fund, donations to help her orphanage (for the "kids left behind"), extra payments on mortgage principal, and so on. Many couples I know do NOT base their spending on their full income, I don't know where this "If ya got it NOW, ya gotta spend it NOW" concept came from. I'm influenced by my parents, who were kids of the depression, and it was drilled into me to always invest a chunk of any windfall for the future, not just spend it because it's there. And a child whose parents are already providing very nicely, and beyond the national gross income of some small nations is not DEPRIVED if their parents think their kid is better off NOT always expecting the world. I don't CARE if it's a "drop in the bucket" or not. IT is the principal that a parent should provide for their children, but once they have done that, what they do with their money should be at their discretion.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
While I still think it's an obscene amount to order for CS, wouldn't it be nice if just a few CS orders like this would result in fewer people popping kids out just 'cause they can? I know, I know - wishful thinking.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
stealth2 said:
While I still think it's an obscene amount to order for CS, wouldn't it be nice if just a few CS orders like this would result in fewer people popping kids out just 'cause they can? I know, I know - wishful thinking.


Or, it could result in the reverse. This gives an incentive to women to try to make a baby with someone rich because THEY will have all their living expenses and way more covered for at least 18 years.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top