Christine Brown Woolley: Nacho Sister Wife Anymore

[Soapy Goddess]

2 minutes ago, LilyD said:

Why do I think Robyn would never accept this? Every now and then, possibly. Half the time? Absolutely not. I"m glad Truely now has a choice in this as, not being wanted  is so destructive for a child (or anyone or that matter)

 

 

 

If it would have saved Kody & Robyn money and/or keep Christine in AZ, I bet she would have no objections. Plus she'd have more money to shop at Frederick's of Hollywood.

[Irate Panda]

14 hours ago, Orcinus orca said:

But I have never liked or trusted Sparkle Princess who repeatedly chose Kootie over her kids and came right out and said she wouldn't leave him if he moved back into her bedroom.

I think it’s great Christine is trying to get support for Truely because Kody should have been paying that anyway .  I don’t even mind and maybe understand why she waited, but this part right here  is what always bothered me.

There were so many reasons to leave Kody and I can even understand it not being fair or being wrong that he would still get to have sex and she theoretically wouldn’t, but really Christine, that was the line?  All the trash this fool has done and that was the problem? And Christine usually got a good edit so I don’t think it was producers making her look bad.

It’s not that she left because of that too it’s because it came off as she would have stayed if that didn’t happen.  Now months later it seemed like it was because of Ysbel’s surgery or generally awful behavior from Grody but that initial episode did not make it seem that way to me.  I actually think that may have been the last full season I watched because I’m like all these people except most of the children (not really a Paedon or Leon fan) are pretty awful.

[Absolom]

2 hours ago, Irate Panda said:

 I actually think that may have been the last full season I watched because I’m like all these people except most of the children (not really a Paedon or Leon fan) are pretty awful.

You made me think would any of us want to be friends with any of the original five so-called adults?  I don't think any of them would make good best friends.  I might be able to tolerate Janelle as an acquaintance for certain activities if we never discussed Kody.  Maybe.  

[Meow Mix]

Truley is absolutely entitled to support from both her parents.  I agree that Christine waited until now to file because Kody could have sued for at least 50% custody and there was nothing that could have been done about it.  I agree he didn't want Truley at all since when she was just down the road he never visited her.  Also, I agree that Christine rewrote history a little when claiming that she left because of the situation with Ysabel's surgery.  She clearly stated on the show that it was because she wasn't getting visits from little Kody anymore.

I'm fine with Christine or any of the OG wives needling Kody, but I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with using Truley to do it.  She's entitled to the support, but I think Christine is far more motivated by wanting to stick it to Kody.  I feel so bad for Truley because I don't think either of her parents have done right by her.  Christine is better than Kody, but the way she handled telling Truley about leaving and even trying to get a reaction out of her for the camera was gross.

[Adiba]

I’m going to be devil’s advocate here and guess that maybe Kody was contributing financially for Truely and has since stopped?

 Christine said she wanted to be friendly when she first left Kody, so maybe that's why she didn't file right away. Things obviously went south in that area and possibly Kody has not visited Truely nor financially contributed in a long time— then Christine sees the McMansion listing and Aurora’s $5,500 Maisano bear statue (the “Aurora “) and finally decided to file formally. 
This is obviously just my speculation— I agree that Christine should have filed long ago.

[Irate Panda]

2 minutes ago, Adiba said:

Aurora’s $5,500 Maisano bear statue (the “Aurora “)

[ChristmasJones]

Will Christine's husband's income factor into this? Or is each parent's finances treated separately?  What if Christine made more income than Kody- would that affect how much he has to pay? 

[ginger90]

17 minutes ago, ChristmasJones said:

Will Christine's husband's income factor into this? 

David’s income won’t have anything to do with it.

 

Edited September 30 by ginger90

[Elizzikra]

Quote

I doubt Kody can be bothered about visits or having to give consent for Truely’s travels. He simply doesn’t care. I also doubt Christine really needs the money to support Truely, unless it’s to pay off that hideous medical bill from years back. 

Where would all of Christine's money come from? Isn't she into some MLM that likely doesn't pay out? And there's show money but what other source of income does she have?

Agree with other posters, though. Whether or not Christine can afford to support Truely alone, Truely is entitled to financial support from both parents.  If the money isn't needed for daily expenses now, it can go toward Truely's future.

[precious pupp]

Apparently, Kody has covered the bills from Robyn's oldest three for college, since they've all graduated/or are attending (not counting any financial aid or scholarships they've had.)  Truely hasn't had her dad around for (apparently) most of her life, so the least he could do for his daughter is to pony up money for her future.  

[mythoughtis]

I don’t understand why Christine waited three years to do this.   Kody should have been paying his share of Truely’s expenses all along.  The legal part should have been taken care of as soon as she moved to Utah without Kody.   Has he failed to pay his share?   

 

Edited September 30 by mythoughtis

[Pickleinthemiddle]

34 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

I don’t understand why Christine waited three years to do this.   Kody should have been paying his share of Truely’s expenses all along.  The legal part should have been taken care of as soon as she moved to Utah without Kody.   Has he failed to pay his share?   

 

I think she waited until Truely was old enough that she was legally able to have a say in it.  To possibly not have to go and visit anymore, if she choose not to.  Maybe she was trying to give him enough time to show that he did want to see her and support her.  

[General Days]

3 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

Where would all of Christine's money come from? Isn't she into some MLM that likely doesn't pay out? And there's show money but what other source of income does she have?

 

The show is good money. It's not the kind of money actors and actresses make on scripted TV, but they're pulling in some dough. Recent speculation/leaks suggest each Brown parent is getting $40,000 per episode, this season. Last season, there were 14 regular episodes, plus 4 One-on-One episodes, plus 2 episodes for Christine's wedding, plus those 4 (total) Look Back/Talk back episodes. That's $40,000 x 24 = $960,000 per adult, or almost $1 million per adult.

Even if we cut that $40K in half to $20K per episode, per Brown parent, Christine is doing fine on show money alone. The MLMs are their gravy because they know the show will end someday.

Edited to add: for regular people, MLMs don't pay out. People with some modicum of fame attract a lot more people willing to join on as salespeople, and they make a lot more sales on their own, so they make money.

You and I would go broke buying MLM product to keep our status up, to keep our MLM pay in a higher bracket. That's not a problem for people with a following like the Browns have.

Edited September 30 by General Days

[Absolom]

I can't imagine TLC paying $200K per episode to the five original parents.  That would exceed their norm by a huge margin.  It's far more likely to be closer to $40 to $60K for the five of them per episode.  

[General Days]

9 hours ago, Absolom said:

I can't imagine TLC paying $200K per episode to the five original parents.  That would exceed their norm by a huge margin.  It's far more likely to be closer to $40 to $60K for the five of them per episode.  

 

My reply drifts from Christine to compensation for all five parents, so I moved the conversation here:

 

[GeorgiaRai]

In my state, financial support and visitation/custody are two completely separate legal proceedings. Filing for support wouldn't trigger visitation rights, especially for never-married parents, but regardless, I doubt Christine was afraid Kody would fight for - much less win - shared physical custody of Truely.  

I've wondered if Christine only used the "no intimacy" thing as an excuse on the show, but in reality, the reasons were all the ones we could clearly see.  Going into the divorce episodes, I think she absolutely had a plan for how she would frame it, address it and respond to Kody's insanity.  It would make sense to me if part of her plan was to avoid bringing up parenting issues on the show, making them even more of a public discussion than they already were/are.

[Absolom]

Support can be tied to how much time the child spends with each parent at least in many states.  If custody time is split 50/50 less support is awarded than where the child is expected to spend one weekend a month with one parent.  

[Salacious Kitty]

11 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Support can be tied to how much time the child spends with each parent at least in many states.  If custody time is split 50/50 less support is awarded than where the child is expected to spend one weekend a month with one parent.  

Pretty sure the split here is 100/0. 

[ginger90]

12 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Support can be tied to how much time the child spends with each parent at least in many states.  If custody time is split 50/50 less support is awarded than where the child is expected to spend one weekend a month with one parent.  

Yes, and in addition who pays for medical coverage is also taken into account. I hope Truely has coverage at this point.

[GeorgiaRai]

11 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Support can be tied to how much time the child spends with each parent at least in many states.  If custody time is split 50/50 less support is awarded than where the child is expected to spend one weekend a month with one parent.  

I agree it can effect the amount of child support one owes if the child spends time with the non-custodial parent.  What I question is the idea that filing for child support automatically triggers or turns into a proceeding to determine custody and visitation (not saying you were implying that - just responding to the general discussion.)   My personal guess is that reasons aside from Truely's age factored into the timing of Christine's filing.

[ginger90]

25 minutes ago, GeorgiaRai said:

What I question is the idea that filing for child support automatically triggers or turns into a proceeding to determine custody and visitation

I’m curious what state you’re referring to.

 

Child support is based on the gross monthly income of both parents and the number of overnights the child spends in each household, medical coverage expenses. Child support won’t be awarded blindly. They will have to come up with a parenting plan, if they can’t agree the court will do it for them. This is why I believe Christine has let a pattern be established before filing, along with the fact Truely is now 14 years old.

Edited September 30 by ginger90

[Natalie68]

On 9/28/2024 at 9:14 AM, Orcinus orca said:

I might support this if she hadn't waited three years to do it.  She could have/should have done it the minute she moved out.

I think she did it so Truly could choose where she wants to live.

[Natalie68]

On 9/28/2024 at 12:35 PM, Orcinus orca said:

I'm not disagreeing she has rights. I am casting a side eye about altruistic reasons vs revenge. 

But I have never liked or trusted Sparkle Princess who repeatedly chose Kootie over her kids and came right out and said she wouldn't leave him if he moved back into her bedroom.

I see it as she is making sure her child has as many opportunities as Robyn's kids and their shared kids. While making sure Truly could choose where she lives.

[GeorgiaRai]

2 hours ago, ginger90 said:

I’m curious what state you’re referring to.

 

Child support is based on the gross monthly income of both parents and the number of overnights the child spends in each household, medical coverage expenses. Child support won’t be awarded blindly. They will have to come up with a parenting plan, if they can’t agree the court will do it for them. This is why I believe Christine has let a pattern be established before filing, along with the fact Truely is now 14 years old.

In Georgia, a mother can file to have child support collected from the father of the child; it's calculated using a published formula based on income, family size, etc.  A father not married to the child's mother can also separately file a legitimation suit in family court to prove paternity and for parental rights and visitation. The two matters are not dependent on each other.  

Maybe in Christine's state, you can't request child support without going through a custody proceeding and agreeing on rights, visitation, etc.?

All of this, in Georgia, would be different if there had been a marriage and  divorce, because custody, visitation and child support would've been part of the divorce decree or separation agreement. I assumed K&C didn't go that route but simply went their separate ways without court involvement; obviously, I could be 100% wrong about that!

[Absolom]

They couldn't get a divorce because there was no marriage, obviously.  They could have had a custody agreement but I don't think either one of them pursued that.  The only reason custody and visitation become an issue related to the child support is to determine the percentage of time Truly is with each parent.  

[ginger90]

44 minutes ago, GeorgiaRai said:

Maybe in Christine's state, you can't request child support without going through a custody proceeding and agreeing on rights, visitation, etc.?

They will be told to come up with a parenting plan. If Christine and Kody agree, it will be an order. The court doesn’t have to agree with them though, and can change it, “in the best interest of the child”. If Kody and Christine don’t agree, then it’s up to the court to make one.

[GeorgiaRai]

27 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

They will be told to come up with a parenting plan. If Christine and Kody agree, it will be an order. The court doesn’t have to agree with them though, and can change it, “in the best interest of the child”. If Kody and Christine don’t agree, then it’s up to the court to make one.

Interesting how different the laws are in different states. Obvs you have experience in AZ (or is it Utah?) so I'll take your word for it that this is how it works when a woman seeks child support there.

[Denize]

When Christine was selling her house in Flagstaff & had that sitdown with Kody, he said they didn't want to get Laww-Yers involved because a custody battle would result in The State owning Truely, obviously to scare Christine, who used to believe Kody was knowledgable about laws and finances.

Edited October 1 by Denize

[ginger90]

Since Christine posted this I’m putting it here.

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAlZZolPutN/

Of course now Janelle posted it also. 🤣🤣

[LilyD]

Janelle and Christine are living proof of what toxic and stressful relationships do to your body and well-being in general. They look so much more relaxed than a few years back. They look so much healthier and radiant. What am I saying? They look absolutely stunning in that video! 

 

Edited October 5 by LilyD
picture should have been video

[Denize]

They now look a few years younger than Robyn.

[Mod-Tigerkatze]

Hi everyone,

members who frequent both this and the episode topics already know what I'm about to say but anyone who isn't doesn't. So, anyway, about the use of narcissism to describe a self-centered person… Kindly keep in mind that not everyone who is self-centered and egoistical is also a narcissist. While narcissism is defined as “excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance“, narcissism is a personality disorder. Using the term indiscriminately not only undermines the seriousness of the disorder, it also impacts any individual affected by it. Please refrain from using the term to demean or insult and consider one of the many alternatives to describe a self-centered individual.

Thank you!

[ginger90]

[precious pupp]

I love that Truely is getting to do fun stuff with her mom.  

[Meow Mix]

I love seeing Truely getting to do something she wants to do instead of tagging along with younger or older kids.  Hope she had a great time.

[surfgirl]

Truly looks so happy and like she is finally growing into herself.

[Ms.Lulu]

Adding this in both the Kody and Christine threads. Heard it on Without a Crystal Ball.

So Kody has filed a counter suit against Christine regarding Truely.

This is about to get uglier.

[ginger90]

2 hours ago, Ms.Lulu said:

Adding this in both the Kody and Christine threads. Heard it on Without a Crystal Ball.

So Kody has filed a counter suit against Christine regarding Truely.

This is about to get uglier.

What would he be filing a counter suit for?  Doesn’t make sense.

[Salacious Kitty]

1 minute ago, ginger90 said:

What would he be filing a counter suit for?  Doesn’t make sense.

The filing is sealed. We won't know anything until a judgment has been made. 

Unless Kody says something, which is possible. 

Edited October 24 by Salacious Kitty

[Soapy Goddess]

10 hours ago, Ms.Lulu said:

Kody has filed a counter suit against Christine regarding Truely.

This is about to get uglier.

Only NOW he cares about Truely? What a spiteful bastard!

[Fosca]

4 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Only NOW he cares about Truely? What a spiteful bastard!

 

I suspect he only cares now because he might have to pay child support for her.  Anything that concerns his money he cares about.

[ginger90]

15 hours ago, Ms.Lulu said:

So Kody has filed a counter suit against Christine regarding Truely.

 

Are you sure it’s a counter suit and not the required response to the court?

 

 

[General Days]

I loaded up WOACB's video yesterday, but I can't take listening to her for long, so I just moved the thing at the bottom of the video player until I saw what looked like documents. See the screenshots, below. It was just a list of the filings. Everything else she showed amounted to screenshots from websites that put out posts and flowcharts about divorce.

I don't like Kody, and don't want to take up for him, but I think WOACB's coverage of this is sensationalistic. I'm not a lawyer. I've never been divorced, but most of this stuff looks pretty routine.

TL;DR: Kody's counterclaim could be as simple as, "Plaintiff says she had to spend $X to bring our daughter to see me every month, but plaintiff took our daughter and moved her 500 miles away from me and her minor siblings, without my consent. I want our visitation with our daughter at my house, so she can continue a relationship with her minor siblings." 

Kody has to respond to her filings, or Christine wins in a default judgment. Most lawyers won't let that happen. If he disagrees with any of Christine's demands (which is pretty typical) I think these are the sorts of filings we would see. 

I don't think the Ashley Roundup link in one of the other threads here is any more "exclusive" than the WOACB thing, either. 

In my opinion, both creators misused the word "exclusive." An exclusive story about custody would be Christine and lawyer, or Kody and lawyer contacting WOACB (or Ashley) and giving them info that they're not giving to any other media figure/outlet. That's not what this is.

These ladies seem to maybe have access to one of the legal databases law firms use (or have a follower who does). And either they only saw the image I'm attaching below, which is from WOACB's video, or maybe they were also able to look at those filings that are not under seal. The more telling ones would be under seal. 

 

Edited October 25 by General Days
emphasis

[ginger90]

@General Days Exactly, this is being misrepresented imo. “Counter suit” is not the correct terminology. He had to respond.

 

As an aside, if he mentions Christine taking Truely with her,  it’s going to hit a brick wall for him as soon as he’s asked for the date it took place. Three years later and he made no moves. 
 

He’ll dig his own hole by trying to “defend” himself by saying dumb ass crap to the court. Diarrhea of the mouth will get him, especially with his one star lawyer.

[smarty]

1 hour ago, General Days said:

I loaded up WOACB's video yesterday, but I can't take listening to her for long, so I just moved the thing at the bottom of the video player until I saw what looked like documents. See the screenshots, below. It was just a list of the filings. Everything else she showed amounted to screenshots from websites that put out posts and flowcharts about divorce.

I don't like Kody, and don't want to take up for him, but I think WOACB's coverage of this is sensationalistic. I'm not a lawyer. I've never been divorced, but most of this stuff looks pretty routine.

TL;DR: Kody's counterclaim could be as simple as, "Plaintiff says she had to spend $X to bring our daughter to see me every month, but

It says "Filed: Answer and Counterclaim".  The question is whether the system automatically lists it that way adding the "and counterclaim" in the title even if one isn't filed.  

[ginger90]

16 minutes ago, smarty said:

"Filed: Answer and Counterclaim"

In my mind that’s the definition of a response to the court. It’s the whole point of filing a response. 

[smarty]

3 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

In my mind that’s the definition of a response to the court. It’s the whole point of filing a response. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the answer is filed to rebut what the initial action was about and offer what the defendant believes is the correct resolution.  Isn't there only a counterclaim if the defendant in turn chooses to ask for something that wasn't in the plaintiff's action?  I'm not a lawyer but googling it makes it sound like that.

[ginger90]

17 minutes ago, smarty said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the answer is filed to rebut what the initial action was about and offer what the defendant believes is the correct resolution.  Isn't there only a counterclaim if the defendant in turn chooses to ask for something that wasn't in the plaintiff's action?  I'm not a lawyer but googling it makes it sound like that.

His response would cover that. Response, counter claim I believe are basically the same thing. What I believe isn’t correct, but being reported, is that it’s a counter suit.

 

Edited October 25 by ginger90

[General Days]

1 hour ago, smarty said:

It says "Filed: Answer and Counterclaim".  The question is whether the system automatically lists it that way adding the "and counterclaim" in the title even if one isn't filed.  

 

Yeah, I started out the paragraph in bold with, "Kody's counterclaim..."

I don't think it would say "and counterclaim" if there was no counterclaim (but maybe a lawyer can weigh in). Sometimes, counterclaims are compulsory. 

I just think WOACB and The Ashley are sensationalizing normal legal filings.

 

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

In my mind that’s the definition of a response to the court. It’s the whole point of filing a response. 

 

If Kody didn't agree to all of Christine's claims or demands, I believe the way to dispute/rebut them is in a counterclaim, but again, not a lawyer.

I think it is very unlikely that he is suing Christine for either custody or support (or anything else big and splashy). I think he disagrees with some of what Christine wants, which is pretty normal in custody talks that have progressed to the stage where one or both parents involved a lawyer. 

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:

Let's play pretend. In her original filing, above and beyond her child support claim, let's imagine that Christine sued Kody for $5K for her own travel and lodging expenses incurred whenever she brought Truely back to Flagstaff to see Kody (not just Kody's share of Truely's expenses).

Let's pretend Christine justified that by saying, "I told you I wanted Truely to have her own bedroom at your house, and you never set one up for her, so I had to come and stay in a hotel, so she could stay with me at night."

Kody's counterclaim might say, "Truely has three sisters in my house, and could share a room with any of them. We got her her own bed and dresser. You chose to stay in a Flagstaff hotel, so you could visit your friends and family. You didn't have to. I'm not paying your lodging expenses, Christine." This might be the kind of stuff we're talking about.

 

2 hours ago, ginger90 said:

As an aside, if he mentions Christine taking Truely with her,  it’s going to hit a brick wall for him as soon as he’s asked for the date it took place. Three years later and he made no moves. 
 

He’ll dig his own hole by trying to “defend” himself by saying dumb ass crap to the court. Diarrhea of the mouth will get him, especially with his one star lawyer.

 

@ginger90 I am not sure about your first paragraph, only because we don't know enough specifics.

If Christine went along with whatever arrangements between November 2021 and September 2024 (when she filed), Kody had no reason to make any move, UNTIL Christine wanted to change things (i.e. until she filed).

So yeah, it's been three years, but if she put up with [whatever] for three years, why would he have made any move? 

I am not defending Kody, btw. 

I hope Christine takes him to the cleaners, and I hope her suit helps Janelle and Meri get their fair share of Coyote Pass and the family money, too. And I hope his verbal diarrhea is his undoing, too.

I'm just not so sure there was a burden on Kody to make any legal moves, as long as Christine was doing things the way he liked.

Beyond any petty enjoyment I'd take from Christine giving Kody a legal screwing, what I really want is for Truely to be okay.  Above all, I don't want Truely hurt (or further hurt). 

1 hour ago, smarty said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the answer is filed to rebut what the initial action was about and offer what the defendant believes is the correct resolution.  Isn't there only a counterclaim if the defendant in turn chooses to ask for something that wasn't in the plaintiff's action?  I'm not a lawyer but googling it makes it sound like that.

Sorry. I thought I put this in my previous post. I think the counterclaim is the way to rebut. It's the tool.

[ginger90]

47 minutes ago, General Days said:

As an aside, if he mentions Christine taking Truely with her,  it’s going to hit a brick wall for him as soon as he’s asked for the date it took place. Three years later and he made no moves. 

@General Days I guess my point is, I think anything he thinks Christine did that was wrong in his mind is going to be coming out of his mouth. If he uses that, and it’s been 3 years, would the court actually weigh it at all as being something to consider?