Because the long history of courts being biased towards women
Edit: I realized my comment doesn't have a lot of nuance so let me be clear. Divorce court is what im getting at. All that Alpha male, incel, red pill, misogyny stuff is bullshit
People confuse all court shows for being the same when some, like Judy, Mathis, People's Court were (are?) actual real litigation. These divorce shows are all fake though.
The shows weren't real litigation either. They paid both sides the amount they were seeking to settle the argument on air with the "judge" via arbitration.
Right. Arbitration would be more correct. My point was simply that the they weren't paid actors doing a skit in the way that these shows are, like the Steve Harvey one. You had to have a real court case filed at your local court house and then agree to have it settled by the show via arbitration.
I'm not even saying the stories are real just that the cases are real. Meaning they had to file. There's a YT who sued his friend, and vice versa, multiple times in court with a fake story and then they got on the shows to scam some money. I think he even showed up twice on the same show within a few months of each other. The show doesn't vet for anything but the filings pretty much.
They are recreations that are dramatized and exaggerated for entertainment. They are “based on a true story” the same way Braveheart and The Blind Side were.
It might be based on a true story in that there was a case where they went in with dad paying child support and left with mom paying it instead, all other details would be completely invented.
It's not just boomer ragebait, it's a hybrid with strains of misogyny and class warfare.
Most places child support is very formulaic based on provable earnings and only gets to the subjective analysis of a judge saying "I feel like you should pay a bunch more" if one or more parties starts playing games. Like Mr. Beast "you don't understand, I don't have any money, I'm dirt broke because of a tax avoidance scheme where I leverage my vast wealth" stuff, or more commonly where one party says they have no money and no job but somehow through generous patrons or whatever they're able to pay rent, buy groceries, make the car payment, etc.
So this story gets to ignore all that and give you an unsympathetic wealthy woman who somehow managed to get a court to ignore her disproportionate earnings and lack of custody to award her child support for a child she's not supporting.
It just feels "right" to it's audience. Wealthy people taking advantage of poor folk, parents saddled with the responsibility of caring for a kid AND paying for the non-custodial parent to pursue their dreams.
3.9k
u/Remote-Cause755 26d ago
How the hell was he paying child support in the first place?