S19.E04: How the Mighty Have Fallen

[ginger90]

39 minutes ago, HoneyBeach said:

And then, made Ysabel promise she wouldn't hate him or become bitter.

I believe he asked her if she would become a bitter old housewife if he didn’t go for her surgery.

[Gramto6]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

I believe he asked her if she would become a bitter old housewife if he didn’t go for her surgery.

What a jerk, making it sound like she would become somehow someone bad just because he didn't come.  I hate that poor excuse for a man more every time he opens his mouth!! How dare you try to lay some guilt on her you jerk!!

[Dibs]

On 10/13/2024 at 6:59 PM, mythoughtis said:

There might be another reason Christine waited until now to sue for child support.  I believe she was on public aid at one  point?   She would  have been asked to identify her children’s father- and  most likely said she  didn’t know. What’s the statute of limitations for fraud? 

Yes; Christine (and maybe the others) were "single mothers with dependents."  One reason some states crack down on polygamy is because of this welfare fraud.  She always had the best pantry because she got the most food stamps (this was said on the show).  If so, I would assume Medicaid paid the hospital bills.  Maybe she did the money grab for travel expenses, as I recall they made it a cross-country road trip prior to the surgery.

As for kicking sons out at 18, that's a religious/cultural thing with them (in their religion).  It happened to Kody, so that's what he knows.

Edited October 17 by Dibs

[Yeah No]

On 10/13/2024 at 1:24 PM, LilyD said:

Just curious how cases like this work in the USA? It’s likely that he isn’t on Ysabel’s birth certificate, which is common practise among polygamist dads. How would that work when taking legal actions over such cases or child support? Would it matter/hurt your case if you legally have no father? Especially if a man denies paternity.
Come to think of it:  Christine took full responsibility for Truley’s medical bill a few years back. So, he backed out of that one too. How did he manage to do that? 

A court can order a DNA test to establish paternity, so it doesn't have to be on the birth certificate. Plus as @Granny58, he has admitted to being her father on national TV so there is that too.

On 10/13/2024 at 6:59 PM, mythoughtis said:

There might be another reason Christine waited until now to sue for child support.  I believe she was on public aid at one  point?   She would  have been asked to identify her children’s father- and  most likely said she  didn’t know. What’s the statute of limitations for fraud? 

I don't think it can be proven that she knew he was the father back then so anything before a DNA test wouldn't be held against her. I'm just assuming, I don't really know.

[LilyD]

6 hours ago, Dibs said:

She always had the best pantry because she got the most food stamps (this was said on the show).  If so, I would assume Medicaid paid the hospital bills.  Maybe she did the money grab for travel expenses, as I recall they made it a cross-country road trip prior to the surgery.

Maybe pre-sister wives? I do indeed recall the huge pantry filled with food in the first season. However, I find it hard to believe any of them would have qualified for welfare aid after displaying such a lavish lifestyle in expensive houses in LV and Flagstaff in a tv show. 

[ginger90]

All Kody has to do is sign he is the father. Since they were never married the state of Utah requires paternity be established before the child support case proceeds. Based on when he was served he would have been required to submit his financials by now.

 

For the heck of it, Christine filed for bankruptcy in 2010. She filed as single listing a “companion” who paid rent, utilities, car insurance and I forget if there was anything else. At the time she filed she was receiving $600 a month in food stamps.

[Dibs]

I don't understand how Christine can move a minor child out of state.  If Kody is enough of a bio father to pay child support, then it seems to me he should have the same parental rights to visitation and easy access that any legally divorced father would have, and I know that in the case of divorce, you CAN'T move a minor child out of state, making visitation and access difficult.  I suppose if Christine sues, the courts will decide.

2 hours ago, LilyD said:

Maybe pre-sister wives? I do indeed recall the huge pantry filled with food in the first season. However, I find it hard to believe any of them would have qualified for welfare aid after displaying such a lavish lifestyle in expensive houses in LV and Flagstaff in a tv show. 

Probably not, after TLC money and fame, but few polygamists hit it big with a TV show, so MOST of them take advantage of the system by claiming to be single mothers of dependents, and this family certainly did with their 16 (or however many) kids they had before TLC.  They even have a term for it: "bleeding the beast."

Edited October 17 by Dibs

[ginger90]

7 minutes ago, Dibs said:

I don't understand how Christine can move a minor child out of state.

They weren’t married and Kody didn’t object, that’s the difference.

[Absolom]

5 hours ago, Dibs said:

I don't understand how Christine can move a minor child out of state.  If Kody is enough of a bio father to pay child support, then it seems to me he should have the same parental rights to visitation and easy access that any legally divorced father would have, and I know that in the case of divorce, you CAN'T move a minor child out of state, making visitation and access difficult.  I suppose if Christine sues, the courts will decide.

The first problem is they aren't divorced.  They were never married.  The second is you can move a minor child out of state.  In the case of a divorce, there are procedures to follow that vary from state to state.  If Kody cared, he knew he was the father, he knew Christine was moving, it was upon him to get a lawyer and claim his rights if he truly cared Truely was moving.

Edited October 17 by Absolom

[Yeah No]

1 hour ago, Dibs said:

I don't understand how Christine can move a minor child out of state.  If Kody is enough of a bio father to pay child support, then it seems to me he should have the same parental rights to visitation and easy access that any legally divorced father would have, and I know that in the case of divorce, you CAN'T move a minor child out of state, making visitation and access difficult.  I suppose if Christine sues, the courts will decide.

They have no legal agreement nor is any court deciding on its terms so she is not under any obligation not to move her children out of state. But since Kody didn't want to marry her legally (nor could he have being already legally married) he wasn't complaining about it. If it really bothered him now he could take that up with a lawyer.

D'oh, I just noticed @Absolomsaid pretty much the same thing! 

1 hour ago, Dibs said:

Probably not, after TLC money and fame, but few polygamists hit it big with a TV show, so MOST of them take advantage of the system by claiming to be single mothers of dependents, and this family certainly did with their 16 (or however many) kids they had before TLC.  They even have a term for it: "bleeding the beast."

They are the real "welfare queens"!!

[65mickey]

6 hours ago, ginger90 said:

For the heck of it, Christine filed for bankruptcy in 2010. She filed as single listing a “companion” who paid rent, utilities, car insurance and I forget if there was anything else. At the time she filed she was receiving $600 a month in food stamps.

Christine filed for Bankruptcy in 2010 and she was able to qualify for a $440,000 mortgage 2 years later in 2012? How is this possible?

[Roslyn]

1 hour ago, 65mickey said:

Christine filed for Bankruptcy in 2010 and she was able to qualify for a $440,000 mortgage 2 years later in 2012? How is this possible?

I have wondered this for a long time.

[Elizzikra]

Quote

If so, I would assume Medicaid paid the hospital bills. 

I was under the impression that none of the kids had medical insurance of any kind? If Christine had sufficient income to qualify for her mortgage, she might have had too much income to qualify for public insurance for her kids.

I believe it is still the case that, while public benefits often use the same income calculator, one has to apply for each benefit separately. There is no single application, though many states have tried to implement a "single door" policy to make it easier for people to access benefits. So it's also possible that Christine's kids would have qualified for Medicaid when she qualified for food stamps, but if she never bothered to enroll them, they would not have had it. That seems like a really financially poor move, particularly given that both Truly and Ysabel required costly medical care (and in the case of the latter, they knew well in advance). 

[Absolom]

They definitely would not have qualified with Ysabel and I highly doubt it with Truely.  The show income in the later seasons is too much for state benefits.  The food stamps were before the show income started coming in or only early in the show.  They may not have been paid until the episodes began airing or at least until they were sold to TLC.  Although with the number of children they had and splitting typical TLC first year payments five ways, she could have qualified possibly even into season 3 or maybe 4.

Edited October 18 by Absolom

[Denize]

When Meri was discussing financing for the BnB with her brother in a kitchen somewhere, it did not sound like it was a traditional mortgage from a bank or trust company. It may have been borrowed from some sort of AUB money laundering cartel. Christine's discussion of financing Ysabel's surgery did not sound like regular health insurance was involved either.

Edited October 18 by Denize

[LilyD]

12 hours ago, 65mickey said:

Christine filed for Bankruptcy in 2010 and she was able to qualify for a $440,000 mortgage 2 years later in 2012? How is this possible?

We'll probably never find out, however a quick search on the internet does seem to confirm some likely options we discussed out here:

• private loans through private lending companies, who are less risk-averse but tend to charge a huge interest rate and often have additional terms like a fairly short fixed term and balloon payments (the Vegas houses??) I also think such a construction likely for the Flagstaff property, which could be another plausible reason for K&R to sell right now. It does seem to follow the pattern of the Vegas houses, though it doesn't explain why it was withdrawn so suddenly. 
•  Seller financing (Coyote Pass??)  think such a discussion was confirmed somewhere at one point.

And maybe, just maybe, TLC was willing to give off some form of guarantee to the money lenders. However, if they did it would have been an incredibly risky and stupid move!

[smarty]

You can qualify for a mortgage 2 years after a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in some situations.  The thing the Browns had going for them when financing the houses in Las Vegas was even though they had a bankruptcy on their record they had never defaulted on a mortgage.  It seems that they kept the Lehi house mortgage in good standing.  A foreclosure on your record often looks worse to a future lender than a bankruptcy.

Edited October 18 by smarty

[LilyD]

Yes, but it wasn't just about past bankruptcies. Robyn in particular brought some hefty (credit card) loans to the table. And it didn't help that she had those loans under at least 3 different last names. I think I read somewhere she's had/used 5 different last names in her life!

Iirc Meri didn't qualify the first time because she was late with her paper work.  Janelle and Christine did. Anyway, it still doesn't explain how 3 (officially) single mums and one legally married mum without any real jobs managed to qualify for a combined loan of more than 1.7 million dollars. (other than the income from the show of course, which must have been huge at the time to qualify for that much money. )

[ginger90]

The different lasts names aren’t unusual. Unless she used someone else’s social security number on any of them, they were all her.

 

She has used Fullmer, her mother’s maiden name, Marck, her bio father’s last name, Sullivan, her stepfather’s last name, first husband Jessop, and of course Brown.

 

 

[GeorgiaRai]

I'm not surprised they qualified for mortgages (conventional or non), having little or no debt (presumably wiped out by bankruptcy), a good recent rental history, and a source of provable steady income.

I don't hold it against the ones that collected benefits and/or filed bankruptcy.  The rules and laws exist and are the same for everyone.  I know show watchers often accuse the wives of committing fraud, running a welfare scam, etc. but I think they just took advantage of the same options and programs available for anyone who qualifies.  Thankfully it was a temporary situation for them; not everyone finds their way to a better situation.

[Elizzikra]

50 minutes ago, GeorgiaRai said:

I'm not surprised they qualified for mortgages (conventional or non), having little or no debt (presumably wiped out by bankruptcy), a good recent rental history, and a source of provable steady income.

I don't hold it against the ones that collected benefits and/or filed bankruptcy.  The rules and laws exist and are the same for everyone.  I know show watchers often accuse the wives of committing fraud, running a welfare scam, etc. but I think they just took advantage of the same options and programs available for anyone who qualifies.  Thankfully it was a temporary situation for them; not everyone finds their way to a better situation.

I’m usually pretty liberal about these things but I do have a problem that I can’t clearly articulate with refusing to put Kody’s name on birth certificates so they could qualify for public benefits; particularly when the wives were not only saying that Kody was an active father to the children and was a husband to them (in other words, they weren’t single mothers and they were trying to convince everyone that they weren’t even though they couldn’t have legal marriages). So criticize the government because it won’t recognize plural marriage but exploit the loopholes for your financial benefit? The only thing that takes the sting out of it for me was that put food in those children’s mouths over the years. 

[GeorgiaRai]

I thought benefits were based on income & size of the family/household, not whether a bio-father is named on a birth certificate or whether a couple is married or unmarried.  Regardless, to me, meeting requirements isn't exploiting loopholes; surely the government that made the rules knew what they were doing (yeah, sarcasm there!)  A benefit was available, the state determined the Browns qualified, the children benefitted. I'm ok with that.  Judging whether families who get public assistance are what I consider "deserving"... well, that's just not a way I want to look at things - or people (including the Browns.)

But yeah, agree to disagree!  Just offering an alternative POV.

[Elizzikra]

4 hours ago, GeorgiaRai said:

I thought benefits were based on income & size of the family/household, not whether a bio-father is named on a birth certificate or whether a couple is married or unmarried.  Regardless, to me, meeting requirements isn't exploiting loopholes; surely the government that made the rules knew what they were doing (yeah, sarcasm there!)  A benefit was available, the state determined the Browns qualified, the children benefitted. I'm ok with that.  Judging whether families who get public assistance are what I consider "deserving"... well, that's just not a way I want to look at things - or people (including the Browns.)

But yeah, agree to disagree!  Just offering an alternative POV.

If a single mom applies for benefits and there is a birth father listed, the state will pursue the birth father for financial support for the children. 

Quote

Judging whether families who get public assistance are what I consider "deserving"... well, that's just not a way I want to look at things - or people (including the Browns.)

I'm usually the same way. But at the same time, something just sits wrong with me about the Browns use of "sometimes we are single mothers and sometimes we aren't." I'm thrilled the kids benefitted. I'm fine with the moms benefitting. I don't think anyone should go hungry or unclothed or unhoused (or without healthcare but if I get started on the Brown's refusal to get basic health insurance for their children, I'll be up all night).  But like I said, something I can't clearly articulate just really bugs me about the fact that Kody kept fathering child after child after child with evidently no expectation that he provide even basic support for any of them. Plenty of people do that and it bugs me with them too but they don't all go on tv and moan about how their marriages aren't recognized or respected but then they claim "single mom" status at the same time.

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, GeorgiaRai said:

I thought benefits were based on income & size of the family/household, not whether a bio-father is named on a birth certificate or whether a couple is married or unmarried.  Regardless, to me, meeting requirements isn't exploiting loopholes; surely the government that made the rules knew what they were doing (yeah, sarcasm there!)  A benefit was available, the state determined the Browns qualified, the children benefitted. I'm ok with that.  Judging whether families who get public assistance are what I consider "deserving"... well, that's just not a way I want to look at things - or people (including the Browns.)

But yeah, agree to disagree!  Just offering an alternative POV.

I think what we're objecting to is the mothers taking advantage of their single status to make it look like there is no known father so therefore no financial support from any father. I am presuming that Kody at one time was not only present in his children's lives but also providing them financial support. If the mothers fill out forms to leave out that information for financial gain that they don't deserve under the rules of the government they are scamming the government, no two ways about it.

[GeorgiaRai]

If it's known that any SW completed a form certifying that the father of her child(ren) was unknown to her, then yes, I'd agree that was fraudulent; I just don't find verification that was required when (1) registering a birth or (2) applying for assistance.

If it's known that any SW lied on her application for assistance about the existence or amount of income provided by Kody to her household, that too would be fraudulent.  But that would also mean we, as tv viewers, somehow know more about their past finances than the agencies that actually reviewed and approved their application & supporting documents. Seems unlikely.

To me, Utah's criminalization of polygamy was an entirely separate matter; I don't see any conflict in objecting it while also receiving financial assistance. 

And with that, I shall stop beating this poor, dead horse. 😉

[Yeah No]

42 minutes ago, GeorgiaRai said:

If it's known that any SW completed a form certifying that the father of her child(ren) was unknown to her, then yes, I'd agree that was fraudulent; I just don't find verification that was required when (1) registering a birth or (2) applying for assistance.

A lot of people take advantage of what people call government loopholes and that may be one of them, but just because something is technically legal, it doesn't make it right. Something can be ethically fraudulent even if they can find a legal way to get away with it.

Also I am sure the forms they had to fill out ask if they have other sources of income and I am sure they lied on them not to include whatever Kody was giving them.

We've all heard stories about the very rich taking advantage of tax loopholes and shelters and paying at much lower tax rates than what people less well off have to pay. Is it legal? Yes. Is it ethical? No.

But this family, especially Kody, bend their ethics to suit themselves. "Bleeding the beast" is an unethical practice that they somehow twisted to suit their warped, self-serving religious beliefs. They don't care about the people that really need the money who may have to settle for less because they have other sources of income they are hiding from the government.

Edited October 20 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, surfgirl said:

What you're leaving out is that Kody - the KING of this shit show - had no problem with his wives doing this and I'd bet good money he encouraged it. So why are people aiming their displeasure at the women here when they did nit seem to do anything without Kotex's approval?

If the women stood to gain from it they were complicit in it themselves and incidentally they were the people filling out those forms so they have personal responsibility in not disclosing a source of income coming from him. Of course he is to blame for it too. Just because I didn't mention that doesn't mean I don't think it.

[GeorgiaRai]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

...I am sure they lied

...unethical practice that they somehow twisted

...They don't care about the people that really need the money 

 

It's fine, of course, that you believe this; I'm not trying to change your mind.  But these are not conclusions I've reached or assumptions I've made. I have a different point of view, that's all.

[surfgirl]

4 hours ago, GeorgiaRai said:

6 hours ago, Yeah No said:

...I am sure they lied

...unethical practice that they somehow twisted

...They don't care about the people that really need the money 

It's fine, of course, that you believe this; I'm not trying to change your mind.  But these are not conclusions I've reached or assumptions I've made. I have a different point of view, that's all.

I believe those are called 'opinions', not conclusions.

[Yeah No]

I don't know, ever since I've been watching this show all I've heard is how unethical and even fraudulent it was for them as a family to "bleed the beast" and take advantage of the wives' single status to get them on Food Stamps and possibly Welfare when they were getting supported by their baby daddy and conveniently not telling the government about it when for sure they were asked whether they had any other means of support not already stated.

And now suddenly that's OK? I don't understand. Of course Kody is also to blame for it. By not mentioning that I didn't mean he wasn't.

Edited October 20 by Yeah No

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, GeorgiaRai said:

If it's known that any SW completed a form certifying that the father of her child(ren) was unknown to her, then yes, I'd agree that was fraudulent; I just don't find verification that was required when (1) registering a birth or (2) applying for assistance.

If it's known that any SW lied on her application for assistance about the existence or amount of income provided by Kody to her household, that too would be fraudulent.  But that would also mean we, as tv viewers, somehow know more about their past finances than the agencies that actually reviewed and approved their application & supporting documents. Seems unlikely.

BTW, it is well known that the AUB have been accused of and even admitted to food stamp fraud. There are articles about this all over the place. And we know that Christine did admit to being on food stamps at one time.

Here are a couple: 

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/09/20/flds-leader-admits-food-stamp-fraud

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42346118

It's just a hop, skip and a jump to extend that to Welfare fraud and even bankruptcy (and we know that at least some of them have admitted to declaring bankruptcy).

And here's a Google AI definition of the concept of "bleeding the beast":

Quote

“Bleeding the beast” is a term used in polygamous communities to describe the idea of defrauding the government and its taxpayers for personal gain. Fundamentalists believe that “bleeding the beast” is a righteous act that will help God destroy the U.S. government. 

Essentially this means that they do whatever they can to take as much public assistance as possible from whatever government programs they can even if it means committing fraud to do so. And yes, I didn't think that idea up myself. I have seen it repeated in many places online by many people.

There have also been dozens of articles over the years discussing all the probable and possible fraudulent schemes this family may have been involved in. We don't know how they managed to support all those kids, especially before the show, but it seems to be a thing in the AUB to find ways to get money from all kinds of sketchy schemes like running up credit cards on purpose then declaring bankruptcy to support their huge families. It's all over the internet so why the gov't hasn't gotten wind of it and put them under a microscope is beyond me but it wouldn't surprise me knowing the gov't.

I am by far not the expert on this or what kind of sketchy and even fraudulent schemes the Browns may have been involved in toward that end. There are far more knowledgeable people on this board on that subject whose posts I've been reading on it for over a decade.

But, hey, believe what you want.

[GeorgiaRai]

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

But, hey, believe what you want.

I do.  Thanks! 

[Elizzikra]

Quote

And now suddenly that's OK? I don't understand. Of course Kody is also to blame for it. By not mentioning that I didn't mean he wasn't.

First let me say that I have never seen birth certificates for any of the Browns, so I don't know what they say. So I am reacting to having read here that Kody is not named as the kids' father. 

I have plenty of anger for Kody as well. He has a responsibility to claim the children he has fathered. They have a right to know who their parents are and to all the legal benefits that go along with that. I know that the kids know who their father is but I can't help but wonder if they didn't all go through some phase of being hurt that he didn't acknowledge paternity when he had the chance. It strikes me as dishonest on both the mothers' parts and Kody's part to fail to name him as the father when everyone knows and agrees that he is the father. I do acknowledge and respect that some women have very valid reasons for leaving a known birth father's name off a birth certificate, but I don't believe any of those circumstances were at play with the Browns.

It particularly galls me that he went through massive hoops - divorcing Meri and marrying Robyn, so that he could legally adopt her first three kids - basically claiming them as his offspring, when he did not do that for his other kids. 

[Mod-Tigerkatze]

Hi everyone, 

just dropping in to let you know that the posts concerning the Brown's financial situation have been moved to the Small Talk thread. 

While not entirely off-topic, they're not exactly about the episode either, hence, the move. As this page's posts have drifted into fairly general Brown territory as well, please let me or another moderator know if you would like a General Discussion topic or feel free to create one yourself. 

Thank you and carry on. 

 

[goofygirl]

I'm still surprised that after that long solliquy Sobbyn gave about "DADS", that she wouldn't think of her own children and their BIO-DAD, that she has spoken so horribly about in the past.  AuroraBriannaDayun's BIO dad, the one who let the DOUCHECANOE adopt them!

What the AF???

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, goofygirl said:

I'm still surprised that after that long solliquy Sobbyn gave about "DADS", that she wouldn't think of her own children and their BIO-DAD, that she has spoken so horribly about in the past.  AuroraBriannaDayun's BIO dad, the one who let the DOUCHECANOE adopt them!

What the AF???

I saw something online that David Preston Jessop (their bio-dad) is extremely ill with some type of leukemia.  After he and Robyn got a divorce, he remarried and has four children.  Sounds like A+B+D don't know their OTHER half-siblings, nor do they consider them part of their family.  

[Absolom]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Sounds like A+B+D don't know their OTHER half-siblings, nor do they consider them part of their family.  

Just the tiniest bit hypocritical of them?😏

[ginger90]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Sounds like A+B+D don't know their OTHER half-siblings, nor do they consider them part of their family.  

So many things about Robyn and her kids aren’t on the show. In the current timeline airing, Robyn’s stepfather passed away. There was no mention of it on the show.

[LilyD]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:07 PM, AZChristian said:

I saw something online that David Preston Jessop (their bio-dad) is extremely ill with some type of leukemia.  After he and Robyn got a divorce, he remarried and has four children.  Sounds like A+B+D don't know their OTHER half-siblings, nor do they consider them part of their family.  

taking this to the Robyn thread

 

[Dibs]

The government DOES know about "bleeding the beast," which is why polygamy was/is illegal in some places.

That's sad about Jessup and sad that his own (first three) children are apparently estranged from him.

Edited 14 hours ago by Dibs

[Denize]

and it is not just the government (taxpayers) that gets bled, but small business owners who get screwed every time one of the wives declares bankruptcy 

Edited 14 hours ago by Denize