I've long since resigned myself to the fact that a large percentage of these guys come from difficult backgrounds and rather unsavory circumstances. Kind of like seeing behind the curtain so to say, when we lived in KC around some of the players.

I had some people I went to school with who knew people that worked for the Chiefs in different capacities that we spent a lot of time with, some of the stories they would tell were pretty crazy.

I basically take it as pure entertainment and enjoy the guys who are generally good dudes, how ever many they are.
[Reply]

The article says that the girlfriend filed for child support which is what happens in every child support case.

Prove that he hasn't paid.
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

How the hell can I show you that. I can show you that the Washington Post article doesn't say that he hasn't paid or that he owes any back pay.

If he owes any back pay it would be a court filing for that also. Where is it?
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

Again, proving that you know nothing, regardless of the subject.

Publications like the WaPo and Star have Standards of Proof, as do All Good journalists.

Do you seriously think that both publications left out pertinent info to slant their reporting?
[Reply]

I'd think her actions and such go to show that he hasn't been paying, no?
[Reply]

Well, that's logical so on CP, the opposite is true.
[Reply]

What does that have to do with anything? If he wasn't paying and had back pay, it would be documented in court filings. The fact that WaPo doesn't say that shows that there are no filings like that. If he had any arrears or she was suing for back pay, why wouldn't that be in the article?
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

Maybe I misread, but Babbs article seemed to indicate that child support is not being paid
[Reply]

What are her actions? Filing for child support?
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

I'm seriously trying to see everyones side here

But an honest question would be... "why is she having to go to the courts for child support at all"

You may well be right, and this is all speculation about things lawyers have already figured out... but Blabbs article seemed to point to money not being received in due time

There is some grey area of the exact facts here, but you seem needlessly defensive IMO... if the kid is behind on payments, we can all agree he better get right asap
[Reply]

more than likely, someone in his camp wanted a dna test first. once that happens by default the courts take over. if there was no dispute and either personally or with a mediator, then they would have set the terms privately.

the courts do this because they do not want to be stuck paying welfare payments when there is documented proof the childs father (in this case) is or will be a millionaire.
[Reply]

My answer to that question is that because it's smart to have a court filing backing you up. Even if he was giving her 10,000 a month it would still be smart to do that just in case.

It's a legally binding contract to ensure both parties do/get what they're supposed to get. It's financially responsible for her to go through the court instead of just going by his word and promise to give her money.
Posted via Mobile Device
[Reply]

i agree, and that's why it irritates me this is all coming up with the media slanting the possible truth's. to me, her closing her twitter account says everything is going as planned and is tired of other outside influences trying to alter her way of life.
[Reply]

All of the legal bullshit that involves itself when money is at stake is exactly why I'm trying to see all sides and wait for the truth to come out

Just saying that if a judge has already decided on $1300 as the proper amount, and thats not being paid on time... then its a legit bitch

Too many here are taking a different angle than "just the facts, ma'am", theres too much emotion going on IMO
[Reply]

what i find silly about this debate. it's not like this woman is his wife and she is staying with him. she left him. did what she was supposed to do in these situations. it's unfortunate that hill is on camera because i can guarantee you we all work with or know someone who has done similar things, and we are friends with them. we just don't know about it.

ETA: i don't think i have stated, i think his actions could have and should have at the time warranted jail time. but it was up to the legal system where he was to determine that. for me, he has nothing to do but support his kid, present or not. Not show any signs of aggression in his private life towards anyone, and fulfill his court ordered instructions (and that includes 18 years of paying child support). again.. if in three years we are hearing a recurring theme, then obviously he is failing not only himself but everyone else.
[Reply]