Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Null37283t03

Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Was Matt Leinart even rich when they were dating at USC?

No, but he was supposed to be the next "big thing". That child threw a wrench in both their plans at the time. It was big news.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Melina22 said:

https://uproxx.com/hiphop/cardi-b-spent-400k-kulture-first-birthday-party/

So Cardi B. spent $400,000 on her daughter's first birthday. 

So... that sounds like money well spent. 

 I hope the girl will take consolation re seeing footage of it when she grows up because I'm not sure her mother (or anyone else) will bank on making sure she will be able to afford college when the time comes instead of blowing their funds on stuff like this that the girl will have no memory of! 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 4:30 PM, Melina22 said:

 The only possible defence of the actor is that he's a 16-year old boy. 

Being a 16 year old boy is not an excuse for this behavior.  Neither his age nor his sex. 

Edited by Brookside · Reason: Grammar
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Not a fan of her or her husband personality-wise but that's just sad that anyone has to go through that and I do feel sorry for her husband and the rest of their family. 

Yeah, that's how I feel too. I'm not a fan, per se, but I wouldn't wish what's happening to them on anyone. Dog is just broken over this.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

There's no good cancer to have, but throat cancer seems particularly unpleasant. I'm sad for them. 

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/22/2019 at 12:54 PM, biakbiak said:

Not to mention she’s an athlete herself who took a year off from playing college ball to give birth and than returned to the team.

Yep.  She was with two athletes but if that's her circle of people she interacts with, it makes sense.

Now maybe she has bad choice in men.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2019 at 7:48 PM, Domenicholas said:

Blake Griffin has to pay her $258,000 a month in child support for their children, and she gets $15,000 a month from Matt Leinart for their child.

So in addition to being a cleat chaser, she's a for-profit baby momma who chooses nimrods for baby daddys.  Nice girl / stupid men.

Edited by SuprSuprElevated
  • Like 5
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't know why anyone needs $275ish thousand dollars a fucking month! I could live quite happily on that a year. Is she raising over twenty children or something? Or is she just fucking greedy? I doubt her sports career would have earned her that (women do not make nearly what men do in sports), so I don't feel too bad about her giving up her career to be a for profit baby mama. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I just don't know why anyone needs $275ish thousand dollars a fucking month! I could live quite happily on that a year. Is she raising over twenty children or something? Or is she just fucking greedy? I doubt her sports career would have earned her that (women do not make nearly what men do in sports), so I don't feel too bad about her giving up her career to be a for profit baby mama. 

Maybe someone could convince her that she'd get eternal social media kudos if she used just half of that to establish a fund for single moms with zero child support.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I just don't know why anyone needs $275ish thousand dollars a fucking month! I could live quite happily on that a year. Is she raising over twenty children or something? Or is she just fucking greedy? I doubt her sports career would have earned her that (women do not make nearly what men do in sports), so I don't feel too bad about her giving up her career to be a for profit baby mama. 

She isn’t getting that amount of money. 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I just don't know why anyone needs $275ish thousand dollars a fucking month! I could live quite happily on that a year. Is she raising over twenty children or something? Or is she just fucking greedy? I doubt her sports career would have earned her that (women do not make nearly what men do in sports), so I don't feel too bad about her giving up her career to be a for profit baby mama. 

Just because a celebrity gossip site published that doesn't mean it is true. In reality the amount is , apparently, about $32K/month. Even if Griffin were paying $3 million in child support a year, so what. He is wealthy and presumably has a commensurate lifestyle. It would be normal that he would want his children to enjoy the same standard of living that he has regardless of whether they are with him or their mother. That does not equate to the mother of his children being greedy.

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, orza said:

Just because a celebrity gossip site published that doesn't mean it is true. In reality the amount is , apparently, about $32K/month. Even if Griffin were paying $3 million in child support a year, so what. He is wealthy and presumably has a commensurate lifestyle. It would be normal that he would want his children to enjoy the same standard of living that he has regardless of whether they are with him or their mother. That does not equate to the mother of his children being greedy.

SO much this.  Child support should be based on the income of the person paying.  I totally would agree that the amounts quoted are too high if it means the parent paying the support has to live on baked beans all month.  An incredibly wealthy person paying a percentage of their incredibly high income to support their children isn't going to get my outrage meter running.

Edited by Homily
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, orza said:

Just because a celebrity gossip site published that doesn't mean it is true. In reality the amount is , apparently, about $32K/month. Even if Griffin were paying $3 million in child support a year, so what. He is wealthy and presumably has a commensurate lifestyle. It would be normal that he would want his children to enjoy the same standard of living that he has regardless of whether they are with him or their mother. That does not equate to the mother of his children being greedy.

I kind of agree and I kind of don't.  You can only spend so much money a month on your child, no matter how extravagant a lifestyle you are trying to give him/her.

On the other side, there is a bare minimum to keep a kid alive, so each parent should be responsible for half of that no matter how little they make. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, orza said:

Just because a celebrity gossip site published that doesn't mean it is true. In reality the amount is , apparently, about $32K/month. Even if Griffin were paying $3 million in child support a year, so what. He is wealthy and presumably has a commensurate lifestyle. It would be normal that he would want his children to enjoy the same standard of living that he has regardless of whether they are with him or their mother. That does not equate to the mother of his children being greedy.

1 hour ago, Homily said:

SO much this.  Child support should be based on the income of the person paying the alimony.  I totally would agree that the amounts quoted are too high if it means the parent paying the support has to live on baked beans all month.  An incredibly wealthy person paying a percentage of their incredibly high income to support their children isn't going to get my outrage meter running.

I agree with both of you. I saw one site point out that even if the $3 million a year figure is true it would have been only 9% of his annual salary. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is, I doubt that most of that money is being spent on "child support," every month.  Unless there's some requirement by the judge to show monthly receipts to verify the child's expenses (and maybe that is a requirement, I don't know), the mother is most likely spending whatever isn't spent on the child. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

The problem is, I doubt that most of that money is being spent on "child support," every month.  Unless there's some requirement by the judge to show monthly receipts to verify the child's expenses (and maybe that is a requirement, I don't know), the mother is most likely spending whatever isn't spent on the child. 

They actually never went to court to have a judge rule on child support and settled on amount both deemed appropriate before their hearing so I don’t get the issue.

They also settled the palimony case on their own before their hearing and had it dismissed so both seem fine with their financial arrangement and coparenting.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

The problem is, I doubt that most of that money is being spent on "child support," every month.  Unless there's some requirement by the judge to show monthly receipts to verify the child's expenses (and maybe that is a requirement, I don't know), the mother is most likely spending whatever isn't spent on the child. 

I hope we never get to a point where an ex can demand receipts and micro-manage how the custodial parent spends the money coming into the house.  The idiot ex of a friend of mine  figured his child support should consist of a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.  Luckily for my friend and her son the judge saw things differently.

  • Like 19
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, orza said:

It would be normal that he would want his children to enjoy the same standard of living that he has regardless of whether they are with him or their mother.

And that is precisely what the court is tasked with doing in establishing a support order - the state's goal is for kids to have the same standard of living with both parents, so one parent paying support to the other is about minimizing the disparity in living standards that would otherwise result from the income disparity.

Most states simply use a formula.  Once you get up into these mega-salaried situations, the numbers start looking ridiculous, sure, but the standard is sound.

  • Like 15
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I kind of agree and I kind of don't.  You can only spend so much money a month on your child, no matter how extravagant a lifestyle you are trying to give him/her.

On the other side, there is a bare minimum to keep a kid alive, so each parent should be responsible for half of that no matter how little they make. 

Sure, Griffin is paying a lot more in child support than is needed to to keep two young children alive. He is also paying for the mother to have the income she needs so she can stay home with their children. The rest can go into a trust fund for the kids and they will be set for life. I don't see a problem there. Not everyone spends every last bit of available funds. Smart people save or invest a portion of their income for the future.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Homily said:

I hope we never get to a point where an ex can demand receipts and micro-manage how the custodial parent spends the money coming into the house.  The idiot ex of a friend of mine  figured his child support should consist of a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.  Luckily for my friend and her son the judge saw things differently.

I am not referring to child support which the "average" person pays, my post was in reference to very high celebrity child support payments, e.g., Blake Griffin.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I am not referring to child support which the "average" person pays, my post was in reference to very high celebrity child support payments, e.g., Blake Griffin.  

Which is far less a percentage of his salary than the average person pays in child support. 

To put in simplistic terms he pays less in child support a month than he makes playing a single quarter of one basketball game.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 15
  • Surprise 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I am not referring to child support which the "average" person pays, my post was in reference to very high celebrity child support payments, e.g., Blake Griffin.  

The point remains though.  The ex should not get to dictate what the money coming into the house is spent on.  If there is concern that the child is suffering and is doing without then the ex (especially the incredibly wealthy ex's of the world) can go to court and seek redress.  Anything other than that is an open invitation to harassment.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

She isn’t getting that amount of money. 

Okay. So it's:

Quote

Details of that agreement were not made public. According to a TMZ report, though, Griffin is paying Cameron $32,000 per month.

which is still more than an annual minimum wage salary in many states. So, still:

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Maybe someone could convince her that she'd get eternal social media kudos if she used just half of that to establish a fund for single moms with zero child support.

or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Homily said:

The point remains though.  The ex should not get to dictate what the money coming into the house is spent on.  If there is concern that the child is suffering and is doing without then the ex (especially the incredibly wealthy ex's of the world) can go to court and seek redress.  Anything other than that is an open invitation to harassment.

Agreed. And honestly I don’t think a child with a wealthy father should be living like a pauper while his father is living like a prince just because someone believes it shouldn’t take $32k a month to support a child. 

IMHO, the child should reap the rewards of his/her parents success. If that results in tens of thousands in child support per month then so be it. 

Edited by Enero
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Enero said:

Agreed. And honestly I don’t think a child with a wealthy father should be living like a pauper while his father is living like a prince just because someone believes it shouldn’t take $32k a month to support a child. 

IMHO, the child should reap the rewards of his/her parents success. If that results in tens of thousands in child support per month then so be it. 

I agree. It’s easy to look at a figure like $32k a month a think it’s outrageous but when you consider it is relation to his salary it’s actually peanuts. 

$32k a month for two children works out to 0.6% of just his NBA salary per kid. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Homily said:

I hope we never get to a point where an ex can demand receipts and micro-manage how the custodial parent spends the money coming into the house.  The idiot ex of a friend of mine  figured his child support should consist of a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter.  Luckily for my friend and her son the judge saw things differently.

I don't know.  I can see both sides of that.  I had a boyfriend who was paying child support.  He tried to get his ex to agree to his paying certain bills for directly, such as mortgage. She refused and ended up losing the house, which wasn't good for the kids.  Also she would go to him for "extras" such as school supplies and clothes, so he wanted to know where all the child support was going.  He also tried to get her to agree to not taking half his 401K (which she was, of course, entitled too and he wasn't denying that) and he said he would pay for college when the time came.  She initially agreed to that, but changed her mind, took the cash (which was not an unsubstantial amount as he had been working at the same place for 10 years) and this was actually before she lost the house.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

California Child Support: More Complex Than You Might Think

https://www.equitablemediation.com/blog/child-support-california

Unlike some states, California doesn't cap the amount of income that can be considered when determining child support. Given the number of famous people based in California, it's pretty easy for less reputable members of the media to throw out potential child support amounts (based on a star's reported income or net worth) as fact. 

*

One reason you'd want the parents to have roughly similar standards of living is so that a substantially wealthier parent can't buy the children's affections, at least not so obviously.

*

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline battled over increased child support last year, they eventually came to an agreement but she reportedly thought he was angling for money to pay for his other kids that weren't hers:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/britney-spears-angry-over-child-support-battle/

Edited by Dejana
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't know.  I can see both sides of that.  I had a boyfriend who was paying child support.  He tried to get his ex to agree to his paying certain bills for directly, such as mortgage. She refused and ended up losing the house, which wasn't good for the kids. 

Oh absolutely agree,  The non-custodial ex isn't always the bad guy and the custodial parent isn't always an angel.  In a perfect world both parents would always make decisions in the best interests of the kids first and foremost but that doesn't always happen,  And of course in the case of the rich and famous we are getting to hear every detail when things don't go well.  That said though I see way more potential for wrongness with allowing a non-custodial ex to have control of the financial decisions of the custodial parent than I do with treating the custodial parent as an adult and letting them make their own choices.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't know.  I can see both sides of that.  I had a boyfriend who was paying child support.  He tried to get his ex to agree to his paying certain bills for directly, such as mortgage. She refused and ended up losing the house, which wasn't good for the kids.  Also she would go to him for "extras" such as school supplies and clothes, so he wanted to know where all the child support was going.  He also tried to get her to agree to not taking half his 401K (which she was, of course, entitled too and he wasn't denying that) and he said he would pay for college when the time came.  She initially agreed to that, but changed her mind, took the cash (which was not an unsubstantial amount as he had been working at the same place for 10 years) and this was actually before she lost the house.

Yep, its not always cut and dry.

I wonder if in this case he could've gone back to the court and citing these examples revise the child support agreement whereby he could pay for certain things directly (i.e. rent) instead of giving the money to the ex and hope that she used it properly.

Edited by DkNNy79

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, DkNNy79 said:

Yep, its not always cut and dry.

I wonder if in this case he could've gone back to the court and citing these examples revise the child support agreement whereby he could pay for certain things directly (i.e. rent) instead of giving the money to the ex and hope that she used it properly.

I know they went back to court, but I'm not really sure what happened, because we broke up soon after that. The kids are grown now, so hopefully all worked out in the end.  They were really sweet kids and did not deserve to be the center of a lot of drama.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Dejana said:

California Child Support: More Complex Than You Might Think

https://www.equitablemediation.com/blog/child-support-california

Unlike some states, California doesn't cap the amount of income that can be considered when determining child support. Given the number of famous people based in California, it's pretty easy for less reputable members of the media to throw out potential child support amounts (based on a star's reported income or net worth) as fact. 

*

One reason you'd want the parents to have roughly similar standards of living is so that a substantially wealthier parent can't buy the children's affections, at least not so obviously.

*

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline battled over increased child support last year, they eventually came to an agreement but she reportedly thought he was angling for money to pay for his other kids that weren't hers:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/britney-spears-angry-over-child-support-battle/

And, in a sense, he was, because how was he going to have a home up to the standards that his kids with Britney were used to and not have his other kids live there, too?  That means he needed a very nice house large enough for his whole family.  If Britney's boys are used to having their own rooms, then he has to provide that for them, too, no sharing bunks in with the other kids.  How does he take his sons with Britney out for a meal or for entertainment without ever bringing his other kids along?  The paparazzi follow Britney's kids, he needs security when they are out with him and that costs a bundle.

In addition, the children of the very wealthy are expected to attend high end private schools, get tutoring as needed, get music lessons, swimming lessons, tennis lessons and who knows what else. If the well to do parent belongs to a country club where the kids go to play tennis or swim, the other parent needs a membership, too, so the kids can go with them.  If the kid only wears high end clothing with dad, then he/she needs the same with mom. If the kid is taking piano lessons, then mom needs a piano and, if she can't afford it, dad needs to provide it.

It may not seem fair, but divorce isn't fair to kids either.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

And, in a sense, he was, because how was he going to have a home up to the standards that his kids with Britney were used to and not have his other kids live there, too?  That means he needed a very nice house large enough for his whole family.  If Britney's boys are used to having their own rooms, then he has to provide that for them, too, no sharing bunks in with the other kids.  How does he take his sons with Britney out for a meal or for entertainment without ever bringing his other kids along?  The paparazzi follow Britney's kids, he needs security when they are out with him and that costs a bundle.

In addition, the children of the very wealthy are expected to attend high end private schools, get tutoring as needed, get music lessons, swimming lessons, tennis lessons and who knows what else. If the well to do parent belongs to a country club where the kids go to play tennis or swim, the other parent needs a membership, too, so the kids can go with them.  If the kid only wears high end clothing with dad, then he/she needs the same with mom. If the kid is taking piano lessons, then mom needs a piano and, if she can't afford it, dad needs to provide it.

It may not seem fair, but divorce isn't fair to kids either.

These disparities would still be an issue when Britney's children age out of child support and their younger half-siblings are still at home.  What's K-Fed going to say then? "Gravy train's over, kids we've got to move! It's Ramen and shared bedrooms from now on. Sorry your mom's not rich!" I think it's inevitable that half-siblings in this sort of situation will feel the sting of being have-nots (in a relatively sense) one way or another.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dejana said:

These disparities would still be an issue when Britney's children age out of child support and their younger half-siblings are still at home.  What's K-Fed going to say then? "Gravy train's over, kids we've got to move! It's Ramen and shared bedrooms from now on. Sorry your mom's not rich!" I think it's inevitable that half-siblings in this sort of situation will feel the sting of being have-nots (in a relatively sense) one way or another.

This is not something I will have to worry about, but if I had kids with a millionaire and we were divorced, I would just tell my kids, "sorry, you're going to have to live like  a "normal person" when you're with me.  Too bad so sad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, doodlebug said:

The paparazzi follow Britney's kids, he needs security when they are out with him and that costs a bundle.

This is one point that the non-rich parents really should be cut a break on in the rush to judgement.  If they have the kids even on an "every other week-end" basis it's not like the paparazzi or potential kidnappers or crazy fans are going to respect that the kids aren't currently with Rich Famous Parent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Homily said:

This is one point that the non-rich parents really should be cut a break on in the rush to judgement.  If they have the kids even on an "every other week-end" basis it's not like the paparazzi or potential kidnappers or crazy fans are going to respect that the kids aren't currently with Rich Famous Parent.

The kids should probably have their own dedicated security that go with them to the other parent.  It would probably be easier all around for the kid and the security team.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Katy M said:

The kids should probably have their own dedicated security that go with them to the other parent.  It would probably be easier all around for the kid and the security team.

I imagine the kids do have their own security team, but I would presume that, when they are with their father, he would be responsible for paying for it or it would be deducted from his support check.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I imagine the kids do have their own security team, but I would presume that, when they are with their father, he would be responsible for paying for it or it would be deducted from his support check.

I wouldn't assume (or presume) that at all.  Kids don't switch health insurance back and forth when they go somewhere for the weekend and that is not specifically paid for by the non custodial parents for just their weekend.  I would think that that the security are the employees of parent X and parent X pays them. Now, maybe that expense would be taken into consideration in figuring out child support in the first place, but I don't think it would be charged to the other parent on a weekend by weekend basis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Roseanne Barr is returning to center stage. 

Hmm, more accurately, "desperately trying to get attention".  I guess time will tell how many people are actually willing to pay to listen to her and Clay and their "comic" material.

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

I was a big fan of Roseanne's TV show, and I thought ADC was really good in A Star is Born. That said, I expect their tour show to be mind-bogglingly vulgar and as non-PC as it gets. I wouldn't go to it if it came to my town, which it won't. 

I bet it produces some great and inflammatory celebrity gossip, though. So there's that! 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

I was a big fan of Roseanne's TV show, and I thought ADC was really good in A Star is Born. That said, I expect their tour show to be mind-bogglingly vulgar and as non-PC as it gets.

And unfunny. Don't forget unfunny.

  • Like 9
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Today, which apparently would’ve been the late Chef & TV Food Personality Anthony Bourdain’s birthday, is unofficially “Bourdain Day”, according to his friends who created it. Among events set to mark the day, the announcement of an Anthony Bourdain Legacy Scholarship, for students at the Culinary Institute of America pursuing a semester abroad, taking part in 1 of the CIA’s global cuisines & cultures international programs, & ultimately the opportunity to follow Anthony’s global path of discovery & curiosity. 

From EsquireBourdain Day Is About Turning Grief Into Celebration, Say the Chefs Who Created It

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

I was a big fan of Roseanne's TV show, and I thought ADC was really good in A Star is Born. That said, I expect their tour show to be mind-bogglingly vulgar and as non-PC as it gets. 

 Gee, like there already isn't a large amount of what's supposed to be 'entertainment' that doesn't possess those  attributes. To each one's own but I didn't like vulgarity and non-PC before they were  trendy and I don't like it now.  A momentary 'character break' via that from someone known to be levelheaded and considerate is one thing (and IMO can be entertaining) but someone who is known to revel in that and have few if any . . .reasonable moments in their lives is not IMO.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Drogo

This is a place for news about celebrities.

This isn't a place for news about not-celebrities.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×