S03.E14: Reunion Part 2

[cuphead]

2 minutes ago, corter20 said:

We unfortunately have to pay a $70 TVA fee every single bill and an electric membership fee. We have never had a bill lower than $110 when we can lift Windows.

Whoa...not sure what a TVA fee is but if it's mandatory, that's pretty shocking.

Take my upvote as a virtual consolation prize.

[cuphead]

24 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Kathryn is coming from a place of believing Thomas when he said he would always take care of both her and Kensie and now her and the two children. Probably something Thomas will claim to have said 'in the moment'  but Kathryn took it 'seriously'.  Naive?  Of course.

Again, money is relative and $54000. is not a lot of money IMO.  She may have the children every other week but she still has to have a place large enough for two kids which entails more monthly costs.  The lease on the house where she is now is $3100. a month.  That's about $37000 a year right there and it's a pretty small house.   Apparently it's in a nice neighborhood.  If your father is a multi millionaire, you should be able to live in a nice neighborhood when you're with your mother.  It's still no where close to the luxury of your father's 'homes'.

I can't imagine paying only $170 a month for electric in the summertime.  And we pretty much keep the thermostat at 78.  Must be nice....and cool.

As for the present custody agreement, yes, Kathryn's has to be supervised.  That supervision can be done at her house.  And when Kensie starts school, there are going to be other problems if Kathryn has to make two round trips to Charleston everyday.  Hopefully, Kathryn will eventually get unsupervised custody.  That's best for both the kids and Kathryn.

Yes, Kathryn has her income from Southern Charm.  Is there any guarantee of that income?  No.  As far as I know the show hasn't been renewed yet and Kathryn doesn't know if she'll even be invited back.  That would be part of a negotiating factor with Thomas because she's not going to make that kind of money starting out doing something else.

I'm not totally up to date on the court details, but isn't the major reason for why her visits need to be supervised is because she failed a drug test? 

I don't know...it's kind of hard to muster up sympathy if the onus is entirely on her for why it would be necessary for her to schlep back and forth when she has the kids.  I guess it's the price she has to pay.

Hopefully she will pass her next drug test so her visits can go unsupervised but for now, it looks like she may just have to bite the bullet.

Also didn't know that her rent is $3,100.00 a month. For some reason I thought it was $1k.

Anyway, if her rent is $3,100.00, Thomas should throw a little more money her way to cover that cost since it falls under the umbrella of ensuring that the kids have a stable place to live in while they are under her care.

 

By the way, Katherine should take this as a learning experience.  Verbal agreements are non-binding.  The next time she has a kid with someone, and if it involves some type of expected financial compensation, she should get it in writing and have it notarized. *teehee*

[Major Bigtime]

48 minutes ago, corter20 said:

I need to know your secret! I live in the south with my AC set on 76 all day and night. I live in a small 2,000 sq.ft. house. Our electric during the summer is abou $250-$300 and that is without electronics turned on during the day. 

   I'll go to Small Talk.

[Natalie68]

1 hour ago, cuphead said:

I'm not totally up to date on the court details, but isn't the major reason for why her visits need to be supervised is because she failed a drug test? 

I don't know...it's kind of hard to muster up sympathy if the onus is entirely on her for why it would be necessary for her to schlep back and forth when she has the kids.  I guess it's the price she has to pay.

Hopefully she will pass her next drug test so her visits can go unsupervised but for now, it looks like she may just have to bite the bullet.

Also didn't know that her rent is $3,100.00 a month. For some reason I thought it was $1k.

Anyway, if her rent is $3,100.00, Thomas should throw a little more money her way to cover that cost since it falls under the umbrella of ensuring that the kids have a stable place to live in while they are under her care.

 

By the way, Katherine should take this as a learning experience.  Verbal agreements are non-binding.  The next time she has a kid with someone, and if it involves some type of expected financial compensation, she should get it in writing and have it notarized. *teehee*

Why?  Is she not an adult, making her own money?  Are there not nice enough rentals that are less expensive?  Why should Thomas have to pay the entire rent regardless of cost (why not get a place for 5K then?) when she could learn to live within her means?  She makes a very good living right now and combine that with her TAX FREE child support she is bringing in close to 200K (if you counted everything T pays for the number grows, she's not paying all their expenses).  If she can't live on that nicely she is doing something wrong (and prob illegal).  

Sure she may not be able to buy whatever she wants but she is doing better than the majority of single mothers as well as regular working people.  PLUS he pays for nannies and she won't ever have to worry about her kids college tuition etc.  She is living a very charmed life and she doesn't realize it nor is she grateful for what she has.  If she believed a man who made promises while diving into her pants she is even less intelligent than I gave her credit for.  

[Mountainair]

I live in a tourist town in the south on less than $5,400 a month and my three children want for nothing. I pay out of pocket for health care and receive zero dollars from any type of government assistance. I am a SAHM and my husband works 60 hour weeks. No nanny, no private school, a week of summer camp each plus one nice vacation a year. Not sure why $5,400 is deemed too low. Home girl needs to get her priorities straight. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Mountainair

[cuphead]

53 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

Why?  Is she not an adult, making her own money?  Are there not nice enough rentals that are less expensive?  Why should Thomas have to pay the entire rent regardless of cost (why not get a place for 5K then?) when she could learn to live within her means?  She makes a very good living right now and combine that with her TAX FREE child support she is bringing in close to 200K (if you counted everything T pays for the number grows, she's not paying all their expenses).  If she can't live on that nicely she is doing something wrong (and prob illegal).  

Sure she may not be able to buy whatever she wants but she is doing better than the majority of single mothers as well as regular working people.  PLUS he pays for nannies and she won't ever have to worry about her kids college tuition etc.  She is living a very charmed life and she doesn't realize it nor is she grateful for what she has.  If she believed a man who made promises while diving into her pants she is even less intelligent than I gave her credit for.  

Perhaps I was too flippant when I made the comment that he should throw more money her way to cover her rent. A monthly stipend of $4,500 for child support is nothing to sneeze at and I keep forgetting that she has an income through Bravo ($150k? Is that really how much these people get paid for humiliating themselves on television? Not bad...). 

I'm also in agreement with you in that she is in a very good position considering the fact that he will most likely pay for education, private lessons, etc...without asking her to split the costs. Think I posted similar to what you said earlier on this thread, so will give you an upvote for that. =)

[Natalie68]

1 minute ago, cuphead said:

Perhaps I was too flippant when I made the comment that he should throw more money her way to cover her rent. A monthly stipend of $4,500 for child support is nothing to sneeze at and I keep forgetting that she has an income through Bravo ($150k? Is that really how much these people get paid for humiliating themselves on television? Not bad...). 

I'm also in agreement with you in that she is in a very good position considering the fact that he will most likely pay for education, private lessons, etc...without asking her to split the costs. Think I posted similar to what you said earlier on this thread, so will give you an upvote for that. =)

Thanks for the upvote!  I have a feeling T will be throwing a lot of money her way for a long time to come.  I feel for those children.  Their lives are going to be chaotic.  And hopefully they don't grow up to be entitled jerks like their mother and father.

[Babyfoot]

For those of you who wanted all the gory details about Miss Kitty's saloon gal finery, here you go.    Also, I don't know how Bravo avoided getting a shot of her footwear, what with her waving her legs in the air repeatedly, but the shoes, the shoes...

http://www.allaboutthetea.com/2016/07/07/kathryn-dennis-southern-charm-reunion-fashion-flop-exposed/

[zoeysmom]

6 hours ago, breezy424 said:

Kathryn is coming from a place of believing Thomas when he said he would always take care of both her and Kensie and now her and the two children. Probably something Thomas will claim to have said 'in the moment'  but Kathryn took it 'seriously'.  Naive?  Of course.

Again, money is relative and $54000. is not a lot of money IMO.  She may have the children every other week but she still has to have a place large enough for two kids which entails more monthly costs.  The lease on the house where she is now is $3100. a month.  That's about $37000 a year right there and it's a pretty small house.   Apparently it's in a nice neighborhood.  If your father is a multi millionaire, you should be able to live in a nice neighborhood when you're with your mother.  It's still no where close to the luxury of your father's 'homes'.

I can't imagine paying only $170 a month for electric in the summertime.  And we pretty much keep the thermostat at 78.  Must be nice....and cool.

As for the present custody agreement, yes, Kathryn's has to be supervised.  That supervision can be done at her house.  And when Kensie starts school, there are going to be other problems if Kathryn has to make two round trips to Charleston everyday.  Hopefully, Kathryn will eventually get unsupervised custody.  That's best for both the kids and Kathryn.

Yes, Kathryn has her income from Southern Charm.  Is there any guarantee of that income?  No.  As far as I know the show hasn't been renewed yet and Kathryn doesn't know if she'll even be invited back.  That would be part of a negotiating factor with Thomas because she's not going to make that kind of money starting out doing something else.

Say it costs Kathryn $6,000.00 a month to maintain the house, food and utilities.  At least 50% of that is the support of Kathryn not the kids.  Take the remaining $3,000.00 and she is getting 100% of the costs of the children paid for. The only thing child support is suppose to cover is for the feeding, housing and care of the children.  She is required to provide and contribute for her children.

Providing for someone is relative. Contingent on providing for the Kathryn and the children is she allow Thomas to see the children, she unilaterally abandoned the verbal agreement.  Thomas had to spend money to take her to court to see his own children.  Kathryn did not like the previous arrangements Thomas provided she and Kinsey with-the plantation.  Most of all I just don't think Kathryn really likes Thomas-she likes the idea of Thomas.  Not having immediate proximity to the local hot spots is not a determining factor in assessing child support or suitability of the children's housing.

The show was only behind the RH franchise and ahead of RHOD in ratings.  It is being renewed.  At this point Kathryn may have behaved in such a fashion as to not be offered a return spot.  It seems she causes a lot of commotion during filming and inconvenience to the crew.  Dumbass moves like gathering the children from a filming event and leaving because she didn't get to eliminate guests from a polo match are not bright moves. 

Her not coming back will likely not influence the court's grant dollar amount of child support.  She might want to rethink turning down the $4,500.00.  Isn't she on her fifth attorney?  Surely not all of them can be giving her bad advice.   

[cuphead]

22 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

The only thing child support is suppose to cover is for the feeding, housing and care of the children.  She is required to provide and contribute for her children.

*edit ala cuphead*

Her not coming back will likely not influence the court's grant dollar amount of child support.  She might want to rethink turning down the $4,500.00.  Isn't she on her fifth attorney?  Surely not all of them can be giving her bad advice.   

Hmmm...
Not sure if there's a set list of things that child support is supposed to cover. It's kind of a grey area that is difficult to define in the legal sense,especially in a case where one of the parents is in the 1% bracket.

 

On a sidenote, Katherine seems to be thinking about what she deserves, as if she needs to be compensated for being a caregiver and baby machine, and not about what her kids will need.  First and foremost, they need a loving mother who will be a good example and steer them in the right direction in regard to making the right choices in life.  No amount of money will ever be able to make up for solid parenting.  There are a ton of low income families out there who are raising their kids with solid values and doing that by leading by example.  I know a lot of shitty parents who have millions at their disposal but are raising their kids with no values.  On the other hand, I also know a lot of great parents who struggle to meet ends meet but are succeeding in raising incredible kids who will make it in this world with a strong sense of right and wrong, whether they have money or not.  

Katherine is so lucky to not have sleepless nights worrying about the worst case scenario should her kids fall seriously ill and not be able to afford medical treatment, or if they make an Ivy League school but can't go because they can't afford it.  Thomas will take care of those things. These kids will never starve or know the suffering that so many kids deal with only a daily basis.  All she needs to be is a positive influence and a good role model.  

In addition, she's only 25 (?) and can still gain some self-respect by learning that she's capable of taking care of herself and her family.  She doesn't need to rely on Thomas for the material things.  It's sad to watch someone (esp. a woman) not even make any attempts at self-sufficiency because she's trapped in the stultifying confines of her small, unexplored mind.. Perhaps she doesn't know the joy of earning a paycheck based on merit.  Perhaps she was raised to not expect more from herself other than getting married and having a man support her.  Either way, she's short-changing herself and by continuing to allow others to view her as a one dimensional reality tv joke, she's going to do more damage to herself and her children. If she doesn't respect herself, there is no chance her kids are ever going to respect her.

It makes me very sad to watch all of this played out on tv because one of these days, her kids will see what we see and just want to die of embarrassment.

[lilmarysunshine]

6 hours ago, Mountainair said:

I live in a tourist town in the south on less than $5,400 a month and my three children want for nothing. I pay out of pocket for health care and receive zero dollars from any type of government assistance. I am a SAHM and my husband works 60 hour weeks. No nanny, no private school, a week of summer camp each plus one nice vacation a year. Not sure why $5,400 is deemed too low. Home girl needs to get her priorities straight. 

Actually, I thought it was $4,500 and not $5,400?

[breezy424]

We can talk about legalities and we can talk about realities.  Sure, and I've said this before, Kathryn 'could' live  in a cheaper neighborhood.  Kathryn 'could' get a job.  Well, maybe. Recent college grads are having a hard time getting a job.  People without much experience and without a degree are having a hard time getting a job.  Could she 'live' on $54000 a year?  Yes.  Comfortably?  No.  Not in the Charleston area.  Is she thinking about what 'she' deserves as well as her children?  Yes.  That's because good old Thomas told her 'she' would be taken care of.  Naive?  Yes.  But Thomas made that declaration to a 21 year old.

Has the court made a decision of what her child support should be?  If the income of both parents are above $30000 a month, it's determined on a case by case basis.  Thomas made the offer of $4500 months before they went to court.

Like it or not, providing a certain lifestyle for your children when you don't have them is going to provide that lifestyle to the other parent.  That's reality.  Do you want your children to live in a not so great neighborhood because you don't want their other parent to have that?  Thomas is quite wealthy.  Should he put his children in that position.  IMO, no.  You willingly had two children.  Deal with it.  You made that choice.  And yes, the same goes for Kathryn.  I give Kathryn some slack because of her age and being in love with a politician BS artist.  I have no excuses for Thomas.

As I stated in my first post regarding this, my opinion would not be agreed with by most.   I said to take Kathryn and Thomas out of the equation.  I have a number of problems with the Income Shares model that is used by a number of States.  Wealthier parents have a number of ways to reduce their gross income, and assets are not taken into consideration.  Direct payment by the other parent should be a part of it.  That can include home expenses, education, medical insurance, child care, activities, etc.  That would insure that certain expenditures are going directly to the children.  Bottom line for me is that the children are the most important factors.  If the parent receiving some benefits of the child support, so what.  It's the children who count. 

[Major Bigtime]

Child support is not supposed to cover  rent, fake Birkin bags, drug money. It's supposed to be for the care of the children. The money Thomas is paying her is very reasonable. Kathryn had it in her head she'd have kids and be set for life. I remember seeing a woman on Dr. Phil or one of those shows, with 6 kids, demanding she receive more support and welfare money. "The government owes me, and so does he!" she said. This is how I see Kathryn. Honey, nobody owes you anything. You made your bed. Now, lay in it. 

[biakbiak]

Kathryn could live with her parents (which she might be given the custody arangement) but she could also live in an apartment. She isn't unemployed she is making 100kish a season for at least two seasons of this show (she wasnt an official cast member season 1). She has acknowledged he pays her rent. And she said on camera that she wanted a very nice place because she didn't want to have the kids feel bad when they were at her house and that is some fucked up shit particularly given their age. A kid doesn't care if they have a lucite crib or if their mom has "designer" bags (knockoffs can be quite expensive) or if their bedroom us periwinkle. They just want food, attention, and love.

[cuphead]

17 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

We can talk about legalities and we can talk about realities.  Sure, and I've said this before, Kathryn 'could' live  in a cheaper neighborhood.  Kathryn 'could' get a job.  Well, maybe. Recent college grads are having a hard time getting a job.  People without much experience and without a degree are having a hard time getting a job.  Could she 'live' on $54000 a year?  Yes.  Comfortably?  No.  Not in the Charleston area.  Is she thinking about what 'she' deserves as well as her children?  Yes.  That's because good old Thomas told her 'she' would be taken care of.  Naive?  Yes.  But Thomas made that declaration to a 21 year old.

Has the court made a decision of what her child support should be?  If the income of both parents are above $30000 a month, it's determined on a case by case basis.  Thomas made the offer of $4500 months before they went to court.

Like it or not, providing a certain lifestyle for your children when you don't have them is going to provide that lifestyle to the other parent.  That's reality.  Do you want your children to live in a not so great neighborhood because you don't want their other parent to have that?  Thomas is quite wealthy.  Should he put his children in that position.  IMO, no.  You willingly had two children.  Deal with it.  You made that choice.  And yes, the same goes for Kathryn.  I give Kathryn some slack because of her age and being in love with a politician BS artist.  I have no excuses for Thomas.

As I stated in my first post regarding this, my opinion would not be agreed with by most.   I said to take Kathryn and Thomas out of the equation.  I have a number of problems with the Income Shares model that is used by a number of States.  Wealthier parents have a number of ways to reduce their gross income, and assets are not taken into consideration.  Direct payment by the other parent should be a part of it.  That can include home expenses, education, medical insurance, child care, activities, etc.  That would insure that certain expenditures are going directly to the children.  Bottom line for me is that the children are the most important factors.  If the parent receiving some benefits of the child support, so what.  It's the children who count. 

 

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what would be a fair amount for Katherine to receive from Thomas in child support if $4,500.00 is not enough?

[ninjago]

27 minutes ago, cuphead said:

We can talk about legalities and we can talk about realities.  Sure, and I've said this before, Kathryn 'could' live  in a cheaper neighborhood.  Kathryn 'could' get a job.  Well, maybe. Recent college grads are having a hard time getting a job.  People without much experience and without a degree are having a hard time getting a job.  Could she 'live' on $54000 a year?  Yes.  Comfortably?  No.  Not in the Charleston area.  Is she thinking about what 'she' deserves as well as her children?  Yes.  That's because good old Thomas told her 'she' would be taken care of.  Naive?  Yes.  But Thomas made that declaration to a 21 year old.

You aren't totally alone.  I agree with you on this.  Based on what we've seen on camera, him promising he'd "Always take care of you (Kathryn)", and also just my reading between the lines, my take is that he promised her his lifestyle in exchange for having his kids and now he is not delivering on it.  He's not legally required to provide it.  He's not even morally required to provide it, but of course someone like Kathryn is going to be fighting tooth and nail to try to get it, because she knows he could provide it no problem and he just won't.  And he won't provide it not because of the drugs, but because he knows he doesn't have to and he knows it drives her nuts.

I also happen to think they will end up together.

[babyhouseman]

3 hours ago, Babyfoot said:

For those of you who wanted all the gory details about Miss Kitty's saloon gal finery, here you go.    Also, I don't know how Bravo avoided getting a shot of her footwear, what with her waving her legs in the air repeatedly, but the shoes, the shoes...

http://www.allaboutthetea.com/2016/07/07/kathryn-dennis-southern-charm-reunion-fashion-flop-exposed/

Did Kathryn skin her children's' stuffed animals to put on her ankles?

[zoeysmom]

28 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

We can talk about legalities and we can talk about realities.  Sure, and I've said this before, Kathryn 'could' live  in a cheaper neighborhood.  Kathryn 'could' get a job.  Well, maybe. Recent college grads are having a hard time getting a job.  People without much experience and without a degree are having a hard time getting a job.  Could she 'live' on $54000 a year?  Yes.  Comfortably?  No.  Not in the Charleston area.  Is she thinking about what 'she' deserves as well as her children?  Yes.  That's because good old Thomas told her 'she' would be taken care of.  Naive?  Yes.  But Thomas made that declaration to a 21 year old.

Has the court made a decision of what her child support should be?  If the income of both parents are above $30000 a month, it's determined on a case by case basis.  Thomas made the offer of $4500 months before they went to court.

Like it or not, providing a certain lifestyle for your children when you don't have them is going to provide that lifestyle to the other parent.  That's reality.  Do you want your children to live in a not so great neighborhood because you don't want their other parent to have that?  Thomas is quite wealthy.  Should he put his children in that position.  IMO, no.  You willingly had two children.  Deal with it.  You made that choice.  And yes, the same goes for Kathryn.  I give Kathryn some slack because of her age and being in love with a politician BS artist.  I have no excuses for Thomas.

As I stated in my first post regarding this, my opinion would not be agreed with by most.   I said to take Kathryn and Thomas out of the equation.  I have a number of problems with the Income Shares model that is used by a number of States.  Wealthier parents have a number of ways to reduce their gross income, and assets are not taken into consideration.  Direct payment by the other parent should be a part of it.  That can include home expenses, education, medical insurance, child care, activities, etc.  That would insure that certain expenditures are going directly to the children.  Bottom line for me is that the children are the most important factors.  If the parent receiving some benefits of the child support, so what.  It's the children who count. 

I started my position on this matter with Thomas' frustration-what does Kathryn want besides more.  There is a reason the courts don't match lifestyles nickel for nickel.  Mohamed Hadid $75 million home, Yolanda Hadid $4 million dollar home.  There is a point where things just level off.  Should Kathryn be forced to spend her income and child support to keep up with Thomas is the better question.

I do realize that a parent can and most likely benefit and have a lifestyle upgrade.  By the same token if that parent choses not to try and keep up with the other parent they should not be punished.  Maybe the lesser earner doesn't want to maintain extra bedrooms, the upkeep on a pool, a big yard, weekly massages for the kids.  Perhaps Kathryn would rather spend the money on vacations with the children or drama classes.

I can see you really sympathize with Kathryn not getting the ring so to speak.

Since these children are so young there really aren't a lot of expenses outside food, clothing and medical.  As opportunities arise for the children the parents should work out what activities they will partake and who will pay. 

22 minutes ago, ninjago said:

You aren't totally alone.  I agree with you on this.  Based on what we've seen on camera, him promising he'd "Always take care of you (Kathryn)", and also just my reading between the lines, my take is that he promised her his lifestyle in exchange for having his kids and now he is not delivering on it.  He's not legally required to provide it.  He's not even morally required to provide it, but of course someone like Kathryn is going to be fighting tooth and nail to try to get it, because she knows he could provide it no problem and he just won't.  And he won't provide it not because of the drugs, but because he knows he doesn't have to and he knows it drives her nuts.

I also happen to think they will end up together.

I think he is taking care of her.  He didn't promise her his kingdom.  He has been pretty clear that Kathryn wants a lump sum and a portion of his assets. Life just doesn't work that way.  Through their sheer ignorance they have essentially now have the court deciding their lifestyle with checks and balances.  Thomas playing polo and he has the kids no drinks for him after the game.  Kathryn can only enjoy her children with her parents and no parties for her.  Neither can have love interests around the children.  Somehow I don't think that is the lifestyle Kathryn was hoping for.  It was self-inflicted and Kathryn has to live with her choices. 

[ivygirl]

Hey @ScoobieDoobs... I'm watching Whit's documentary on Halston, and the infamous Chanel guitar popped up!

[Mountainair]

5 hours ago, lilmarysunshine said:

Actually, I thought it was $4,500 and not $5,400?

You are right, I transposed my numbers. My point still stands though. $4,500 is closer to what we make a month and between mortgage and health insurance premiums I shell out $2,700 of that a month and still manage to support our family of five. I don't have a supplemental income of about $100,000 a year to back me up either. Kathryn can lose me with her "woe is me tale". Be a mother, teach your children that life isn't all about things. At the end of the day, if Kathryn could step up to the plate, those kids are going to make far better memories growing up modestly with a mother that spent time with them rather than growing up on an estate raised by nannies with their father in the background. 

[AnnaMayWong]

All of these main and kinda main cast of characters are more pathetic than not. Some are simply moneyed AND pathetic.

The main reason that Kathryn continuously opined and otherwise commented fairly often (by the reckoning of some) is because low Andy persistently questioned Kathryn and moreso than the other characters.

Interesting when Cameron was questioned about her "Girls Gone Wild" involvement and her participation in rowdy unruly behavior, she invoked the 'I was just a youngun in my TWENTIES so 'cuse me y'all', and, not surprisingly, all was good 'n CHARMing with The Horde. (Landon, also,  mumbled something about doing/not doing something due to ONLY being TWENTY-FOUR yrs. of age which was the major crux of her confusion and any errors she encountered and confronted in HER life). 

Cameron stated that the reason she attended THOMAS' Supper was to see if tHOmas and of course, Kathryn, had changed for the better--enough for her(Cameron) to associate with THEM. Well, THOMAS in his 52 year old drug-fueled, egotistical-riddled rage showed her. Indeed, he did. As he chastised, castigated, and literally chased her from his home hurling profane comments all the while, he really showed Cameron. Hmm, I guess that's the reason that after initially proclaiming his behavior hurtful, she then began rationalizing his dope-addled behavior, smiled at him ever so fondly whilst patting him comfortingly on the shoulders. Oh, the Double Standards(!). Oh, the hypocrisy(!).

Edited July 9, 2016 by BookElitist

[Giselle]

On 7/7/2016 at 8:53 PM, breezy424 said:

I believe that Thomas has not given the court his true monthly income and is basing it off the SC child support calculator.  If both parents total income is above $30000 a month the support is determined on a case by case basis by the court.  He didn't go to court until a few weeks ago.  I read somewhere and I can't find it now that Thomas reported his monthly income at $15000 and Kathryn at $10000.  I'm not saying it's fact but.... I can believe that Kathryn gets about $120000 for doing the show.  Does Thomas have an income of $180000?  No way.  He maintains two estates, has full time help, and two nannies for 'him'.  He probably has his real estate  set up all in sorts of trusts, corporations, etc. to run the plantation and other things without him having to report a big chunk of his gross income.  And then as the owner of a successful corporation, his Audi Q7, etc., etc., are all paid by his company.

Money is relative.  One of my points is that $54000 can be deemed generous to some but when taking into consideration the income of the parent who is paying child support, many times it's not.  I wasn't talking about the 'lifestyle'  of the other parent. I said that the 'children' are entitled to a lifestyle and opportunity that is most afforded.  The teacher versus the CEO.

Should Kat pursue a career?  Absolutely but the fact is that she has two babies.  No matter how anyone feels about her as a person, that's a tough nut right now for her.  There's nothing out there and no one has confirmed that she has a full time nanny.  And I doubt that she would be able to get a job right now that pays very much and then add in the cost of child care for two children every other week (another obstacle).  And...having to take off how many months to film Southern Charm if the show is renewed (she's not going to give that up based on income alone).  I'm not saying Kathryn is right in all this.  Far from it but Thomas is playing his game as well.  

They have that when they are with Thomas.

There is no reason he should have to shell out more money to "support" Katherine's delusion of  the life she aspires to. She already has a nice adequate roof over her head thatThomas cosigned and pays for, nannies that she doesn't pay for and $27K per child for the 50% time per year she has them. I'm sure Thomas pays for any and all major and minor extras the kids require.

Anything else Katherine requires she should be working for herself. She's got 1-2 free nannies and a college education so there is no excuse for her not working a legitimate job even at least part time. A sad assed,  homely "kiddie playing dress-up"  jewelry line doesn't cut it.

Get a real job Katherine or marry another sap if you want the goodies.

[Jextella]

Thomas wanted his cake and to eat it too.  If Thomas wanted a relationship with the kids Kathryn could have demanded 50/50 for all things kids related. Unfortunately, Kathryn's temper (and drug use) got the better of her.  She was in the driver's seat and now she's just a passenger.

[lilmarysunshine]

Kathryn has a degree?

[FanOfTheFans]

Their is a power inequity between Thomas and Kathryn. This is why she is so frustrated.  But she can only control herself and for some reason she doesn't seem to have learned this reality in life. She would feel so much better about herself if she worked on herself as in education, job, her passions in life, etc.

People are always at their weakest when they are coming from a place of victimhood.  Whether fair or not, that is just life. She has the power to turn it around though and that is the beauty of it.  Yes, she may have to dig deep within herself but thats how one also builds self esteem. All the money being dumped at ones feet will never give her that. It is really that simple in my mind. 

Edited July 9, 2016 by FanOfTheFans
Spelling

[Major Bigtime]

2 hours ago, lilmarysunshine said:

Kathryn has a degree?

No, she dropped out of college.

[Almost 3000]

16 hours ago, Babyfoot said:

For those of you who wanted all the gory details about Miss Kitty's saloon gal finery, here you go.    Also, I don't know how Bravo avoided getting a shot of her footwear, what with her waving her legs in the air repeatedly, but the shoes, the shoes...

http://www.allaboutthetea.com/2016/07/07/kathryn-dennis-southern-charm-reunion-fashion-flop-exposed/

I've been hoping someone would post her selling account and now we know she might be selling on Poshmark.

[Almost 3000]

1 hour ago, FanOfTheFans said:

Their is a power inequity between Thomas and Kathryn. This is why she is so frustrated.  But she can only control herself and for some reason she doesn't seem to have learned this reality in life. She would feel so much better about herself if she worked on herself as in education, job, her passions in life, etc.

People are always at their weakest when they are coming from a place of victimhood.  Whether fair or not, that is just life. She has the power to turn it around though and that is the beauty of it.  Yes, she may have to dig deep within herself but thats how one also builds self esteem. All the money being dumped at ones feet will never give her that. It is really that simple in my mind. 

I find many times people coming from a place of victimhood often have a lot of power because they get people to do things for them as apposed to just getting on with life on their own. Kim Richards is a good example of this. Kathryn's managed a star position, while not even being an original cast member, on a Bravo show, a close to downtown townhouse, nannies and a pretty good salary and probably lots of freebies. If she screws it up that's on her but someone will probably help her out because she's such a victim. The cycle will continue ever downward as she loses her youth and looks. A Tennessee Williams' story in the making. I hope she does better but I doubt it.

[biakbiak]

OMG I didn't think Kathryn outfit could not be worse and then I saw the bottom of the shoes.

[CriticalMass]

15 hours ago, babyhouseman said:

Did Kathryn skin her children's' stuffed animals to put on her ankles?

I try to not remark too much on one's appearance, but... that is a really bad faux tanning job - very splotchy. K obviously didn't allow her Jergen's lotion (she can't afford spray tanning) to dry before sliding under the sheets the night before. I'm old enough to be K's mother and her feet look older than mine. She reminds me of Lindsay Lohan, another Tomato Tornado that has aged rather poorly. 

[Major Bigtime]

2 hours ago, Almost 3000 said:

I've been hoping someone would post her selling account and now we know she might be selling on Poshmark.

Man, she's got some very ugly clothes and shoes.

[CriticalMass]

I was in K's corner for most of the season. I really did sense she was being both ostracized and gaslighted (gaslit?). The lack of compassion she exhibited toward Jennifer shows just how deep the narcissism and delusion run. She rolled her eyes when Jennifer said she was fine with not being friends with either Thomas or Katherine if it meant they would be able to co-parent. She rolled her eyes when Thomas handed Jennifer a handkerchief. I'm sure that eyeroll was due to what she perceived to be Thomas' fake chivalry, but it was more comfort than Katherine offered. She's one stone cold bitch. Poor kids.  

[FanOfTheFans]

1 hour ago, Almost 3000 said:

I find many times people coming from a place of victimhood often have a lot of power because they get people to do things for them as apposed to just getting on with life on their own. Kim Richards is a good example of this. Kathryn's managed a star position, while not even being an original cast member, on a Bravo show, a close to downtown townhouse, nannies and a pretty good salary and probably lots of freebies. If she screws it up that's on her but someone will probably help her out because she's such a victim. The cycle will continue ever downward as she loses her youth and looks. A Tennessee Williams' story in the making. I hope she does better but I doubt it.

Yeah but Kim is hardly someone in a good place. She continues to have raging addiction issues along with chaos in her life. She is hardly in control of her life. She is a mess. I am not talking so much about financial power as I am about emotional maturity and self esteem issues. That is what makes people winners in life. Sure you can go through life dependent upon manipulation to fulfill your needs but it is hollow and makes you still dependent on others.  

[Almost 3000]

1 hour ago, FanOfTheFans said:

Yeah but Kim is hardly someone in a good place. She continues to have raging addiction issues along with chaos in her life. She is hardly in control of her life. She is a mess. I am not talking so much about financial power as I am about emotional maturity and self esteem issues. That is what makes people winners in life. Sure you can go through life dependent upon manipulation to fulfill your needs but it is hollow and makes you still dependent on others.  

I'm not talking about being in a good place but about getting ones own way. Two different things, sadly...

[breezy424]

In answer to some of the responses to my posts, I'm really kind of done with this.  As I said, I know most people are going to disagree with my opinion regarding child support.  My opinion isn't about 'Kathryn'.  It's about child support in general especially when it comes to one parent being significantly richer than the other.  Thomas and Kathryn happen to fall into that category.

In answer to what amount of child support should Kathryn or anyone in this situation should receive?  A significantly wealthier parent should provide enough money to ensure that their children have a comfortable lifestyle when they're with the other parent.  If the wealthier parent has concerns about support not going to the children, there are ways to set up stipulations such as rent, utilities, etc. being directly paid by the wealthier parent.   Same goes for medical costs, education and activities. 

One unfortunate part of child support calculation is that it is solely based on gross income.  It should be based on total compensation.  It's like if you're looking for a job, you don't look at just salary.  You look at compensation - does it include a car, paid medical, cell phone,  retirement, etc.  That's all income because the employee doesn't have to pay those costs out of pocket.

Back to Kathryn and Thomas - both of them have been selfish and immature in their relationship with each other and their children's well being.  I don't blame Kathryn any more than I blame Thomas.

Also, right now Kathryn does not have a job with Southern Charm.  Will the series be renewed?  Probably.  Will she be invited back?  Who knows.  It's not a given.  Whether or not Kathryn has a job next season should also be a part of the child support stipulations.  Thomas's situation is quite different.  He has a very successful business.  His income from Bravo is a drop in the bucket.  Both of them have to come to the realization that this 'is' their situation now.  Thomas made a lot of empty promises.  Kathryn has to realize that Thomas made a lot of empty promises.  I can give Kathryn a little sympathy in this.  She also had a second baby in November and that's pretty overwhelming on it's own...nanny or not.  (And there's nothing out there that says she has a nanny now).  I have no sympathy for Thomas.  I do think he liked Kathryn's 'stock' - Kensie has Calhoun in her name Julien has Rembert, both from Kathryn's family.  Important names in SC history.    

[imjagain]

I think part of the reason I have little sympathy for Kathryn, when it comes to her crying about Thomas and his money she thinks she deserves,  she thought he fell short in providing her with support. So she added another child? 

I'm not saying she got herself pregnant, obviously both she and Thomas decided  both birth control was not needed,  there for having another child.  It's just that if Thomas was failing to provide for her and her daughter,  why did she think another child would make it  different? I just find that ridiculous. 

I absolutely think men should support the children they helped come into this world,  I have no sympathy for men who don't.  But I also believe women should not put themselves in positions to make them more vulnerable and have to depend on some ass of a man to "take"  care of them.  Kathryn expected Thomas to take care of her.  When he didn't marry her after one child, why did she think it would be different  with 2?

I don't like Thomas.  I find him disgusting. I would never spend any time time with him. 

Both Landon and Kathryn have questionable taste in friends and boyfriends (baby daddy for Kathryn). I would never let my friend insult me in front of cameras and a room full of people,  then apologize, and things would cool again.  Nope never,  I'll except your apology but we would no longer be friends. 

Same with Kathryn,  Thomas treated her horribly,  and I bet she'd run back to him in a heart beat if he offered a ring and his big house. 

I don't think the children  lack anything when at Kathryn's.  Does she have as big a house as Thomas?  No.  Can she spend as much on birthday presents? No. Can she just jump up and decide to go to Disney world?  Idk. But that's  all part of life. Sometimes one parent can't do what another one can. I'm sure the children are well cared for.  Clothing, food,  health insurance  and other everyday things. I don't think the children are going without anything.  If they were,  I'm sure Kathryn would be telling everyone. 

After all Kathryn told twitter that her electric was turned off. If she cannot pay her own electric bill while earning Bravo money,  she's in for a big shock after this little show goes away. 

I'm sure she just wanted Thomas to pay it and let it get turned off so she could shame him on Twitter.  It told me more about Kathryn than Thomas when read that news on these boards. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by imjagain

[oceanview]

I am still reading page 4 of this, but I have always wanted to throw this into the mix,  perhaps not valuable insight, but it did happen on the show.   During one season (perhaps the first?) there was an episode with TRav's father in it with him.   I found him despicable, in his attitude toward women in particular, his good old boy and his politician attitude.  The apple does not fall far from the tree.  I pity TRav's mother and any other women that join the family.   

[imjagain]

9 minutes ago, oceanview said:

I am still reading page 4 of this, but I have always wanted to throw this into the mix,  perhaps not valuable insight, but it did happen on the show.   During one season (perhaps the first?) there was an episode with TRav's father in it with him.   I found him despicable, in his attitude toward women in particular, his good old boy and his politician attitude.  The apple does not fall far from the tree.  I pity TRav's mother and any other women that join the family.   

I agree. 

And the one thing that stood out to me during his rant at the nondinner party,  he went after the women.  He didn't plan any attack on the men just the women. Only went after Shep when Shep called him out on being the main problem between Landon and Kathryn. 

As I said in my above post,  I find him disgusting. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by imjagain

[Kerrey92]

Cameran has it right with Thomas and Kathryn being the "hot mess express".  

I remember watching their "relationship" unfold and wondering what in the heck Thomas was getting himself into with her.  He seemed so needy and like he was not seeing the forest through the trees to have some fairy tale romance and future with her.  The relationship all happened way too quickly and neither of them really knew the other one before they jumped into their domestic nightmare.  They both have buyer's remorse but there are two kids attached so they have to both man up and be adults about the situation.  It's something I think Thomas can do.  I really do.  As gross as he is and as misogynistic as he is, deep down, he wanted those babies and would work with Kathryn if she were at all mature.  But she is a 20 something hot head who seems hell bent on seeing slights and digs at every turn.  She could gain perspective if she got herself off this show, into rehab and away from people who don't have her best interest at heart.  

On other note, Kathryn constantly acts like she knows Thomas better than anyone else in the world.  That she "gets" him in a way that no one else does.  They only dated for a few short months and haven't really spent quality time together since.  She's creating a narrative to fit her twisted mind and it seems like the cast buys it.  She also acts as if having kids exalts her to a position where her actions are above reproach and her motives are all pure.  Having kids means you squeezed a baby out, it doesn't qualify you for anything else.  Her actions and inability to see any fault on her part in any of her interactions and her complete self absorption will make her a horrible parent.  Those nannies are earning their keep!

Thomas is truly gross, but he's in his 50s, served in statewide elected office, is from a named political family, runs a successful commercial real estate company and is an adult.  He gets a pass from the cast because he owns his truly horrible stuff and they forgive him when he comes hat in hand and apologizes.  And I am going to guess that each cast member has way more positive interactions than negative.  I doubt that's true with Kathryn, except for maybe Craig and Shep.  

[oceanview]

2 hours ago, imjagain said:

I agree. 

And the one thing that stood out to me during his rant at the nondinner party,  he went after the women.  He didn't plan any attack on the men just the women. Only went after Shep when Shep called him out on being the main problem between Landon and Kathryn. 

As I said in my above post,  I find him disgusting. 

You bring up a great point.   Cannot believe I did not notice that myself!

[zoeysmom]

2 hours ago, imjagain said:

I agree. 

And the one thing that stood out to me during his rant at the nondinner party,  he went after the women.  He didn't plan any attack on the men just the women. Only went after Shep when Shep called him out on being the main problem between Landon and Kathryn. 

As I said in my above post,  I find him disgusting. 

The men had been friendly with Kathryn and Thomas.  Kathryn was the one who wanted Thomas to right the slights she had felt.  It would not have made much sense for him to go after either Shep or Craig as they had been nice to her.  Not that any of it made sense.

Do I think the chat was a good idea, absolutely not.  Craig and Shep were and still are friendly with Kathryn.  Shep and Craig had both at some level called Landon and Cameran out for their isolating behavior.  Kathryn had been included with a JD and Elizabeth event and she elected to bolt.   

Thomas had asked with varying degrees of success Kathryn be included and he was not having much success. 

Mostly I can't figure Kathryn out.  She wants to be included but she wants to tell people off.  I think her priorities are screwed up.  She either wants to be a part or her expressing her opinion of others outweighs being part of the group.  When someone doesn't want to hear what she has to say she behaves like a child.  it is scorched earth with Kathryn in relationships.  When others behave the same way towards her she doesn't get it. 

[Major Bigtime]

Anyone ever stop to consider that Kathryn might have told Thomas she was on the pill and things were fine to proceed without a condom?? Hmm??

[imjagain]

38 minutes ago, Major Bigtime said:

Anyone ever stop to consider that Kathryn might have told Thomas she was on the pill and things were fine to proceed without a condom?? Hmm??

Maybe,  maybe not, we'll never know? I'm of the same mindset  for both men and women,  protect yourself  first. If Thomas didn't want more children he should have worn a condom. Just like if Kathryn didn't want more children she could have also had her own birth control. 

I have a son and daughter in their 20s.  when they were teens,  I always told them,  don't expect the other person to take care of your birth control.  Take care of yourself. 

There was a lot of "oh my God mom!"  but they definitely picked up what I was throwing down (:

@zoeysmom,  yeah that does make sense regarding the men,  they were friendly toward Kathryn. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by imjagain

[HunterHunted]

On 7/6/2016 at 5:37 PM, izabella said:

 

 

10 hours ago, Major Bigtime said:

Anyone ever stop to consider that Kathryn might have told Thomas she was on the pill and things were fine to proceed without a condom?? Hmm??

9 hours ago, imjagain said:

Maybe,  maybe not, we'll never know? I'm of the same mindset  for both men and women,  protect yourself  first. If Thomas didn't want more children he should have worn a condom. Just like if Kathryn didn't want more children she could have also had her own birth control. 

@zoeysmom

 

In what universe is that a good excuse for why Thomas has 2 kids with Kathryn?!?!! This is like Chekhov's baby. Based on their history, Thomas should reasonably know not to rely on Kathryn for their birth control. In season 1, she had her pregnancy scare where both Whitney and Thomas sweating bullets. Shep wasn't because he used a condom. And then Thomas willingly made that mistake two more times. If this 50 something man is claiming that he was fooled by the lying duplicitous Kathryn Dennis, then I'm going to have to question whether he has the mental capacity to make his own decisions. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice, I need a guardian. Three times!!?!?! Three times?!?!!? It just doesn't make any sense that he would have believed that lie three times without learning to bring his own birth control/condoms. If he's peddling this story to folks in the Charleston area, he needs to know that it doesn't make Kathryn look worse. It makes him look stupider.

[RedInk]

On July 10, 2016 at 0:27 PM, Major Bigtime said:

Anyone ever stop to consider that Kathryn might have told Thomas she was on the pill and things were fine to proceed without a condom?? Hmm??

Well I haven't considered that because I've seen this exact same thing played out with acquaintances of mine - and more than once. 50-year old men with money to protect aren't naive, and I think he had more to gain from this relationship than she did. He got a daughter and a son, both of whom are full siblings (matters to some people) and both with good names, from an easily-manipulated young woman who has no power over him. If you want kids at a later age & are looking out for your own selfish interests, it's not a bad deal. 

And FWIW I live in a big southern city & couldn't maintain my lifestyle with my kids for what K is receiving. Not without working myself. Now if I were in her situation, I would absolutely get to work & support myself...but I'd probably be resentful of getting 4K/month if the father of my kids were a multimillionaire. That's not right, but it's honest!

So after binge-watching this, I have to say I've always lived in the south & have never heard so much self-stereotyping in all my life re: what one does or doesn't do in "the south." (E.g., "In the south, a woman wants to be engaged by the time she graduated from college.") Are they told to talk this way?? It's not some weird, magical realm people are unfamiliar with; about a quarter of the population live here. Plus most of it was old BS. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by RedInk

[Major Bigtime]

Quote

And FWIW I live in a big southern city & couldn't maintain my lifestyle with my kids for what K is receiving. Not without working myself. Now if I were in her situation, I would absolutely get to work & support myself...but I'd probably be resentful of getting 4K/month if the father of my kids were a multimillionaire. That's not right, but it's honest!

She's making six figures on this show. For a few weeks of "work." She just can't control her spending habits.

[corter20]

And Thomas, or any man, would be ignorant to trust birth control as a preventative. Thomas is in his 50's. That means that for at least thirty years he has prevented pregnancy. He knows where babies come from and how they get there! He knew he could get babies from Kathryn and he did it. 

I think every single one of my friends have gotten pregnant on birth control. I am the only one who was married when it happened, twice. If he didn't want kids, birth control and a condom would have worked best. 

[FanOfTheFans]

I have always felt that both Thomas and Kathryn wanted the pregnancies for different reasons.  They both knew full well what they were doing. I have never bought this "in a moment of passion" line that they both spew.  

[lilmarysunshine]

On 7/11/2016 at 2:30 PM, RedInk said:

So after binge-watching this, I have to say I've always lived in the south & have never heard so much self-stereotyping in all my life re: what one does or doesn't do in "the south." (E.g., "In the south, a woman wants to be engaged by the time she graduated from college.") Are they told to talk this way?? It's not some weird, magical realm people are unfamiliar with; about a quarter of the population live here. Plus most of it was old BS. 

Same.

[Petunia13]

I'm still waiting for Kathryn to reveal the unveiling of the veil or secret behind the secret, truth about cats and dogs or whatever she was rambling about on Twitter.