FanDuel - WFBC

September 21, 2011

Red Sox Pitcher Served with Papers by Yankees Fan: Before his start Tuesday, Boston Red Sox pitcher Erik Bedard was served with papers at Fenway Park in a child support case filed by his ex-girlfriend. Tom Cabral, a lifelong New York Yankees fan, posted on Facebook that the timing of the papers he served was intentional. "Should I wear a Yankees shirt?" he wrote. "Of course I will!" Bedard exited the game after 2.2 innings and the Red Sox lost 7-5 to the Baltimore Orioles.

posted by rcade to baseball at 03:09 PM - 16 comments

I endorse this as both a Rays fan and a hater of crappy dads.

posted by bperk at 03:17 PM on September 21

I endorse this as both a Rays fan and a hater of crappy dads.

From the article:

Since then, however, Roberts said though Bedard has been paying child support, she has been trying, unsuccessfully, to have the amount raised as his salary has increased.

Except you don't know if he's a crappy dad or not. All we know is she wants more money.

posted by justgary at 03:24 PM on September 21

Child support is supposed to be commensurate with salary. Their kid ought to get to go to the same fancy schools as other millionaire's children. Oh, and this from the article indicates crappy parenting to me:

Roberts, who lives in Kentucky and said the two were together for more than a year, said she was forced to have the left-hander served at Fenway Park because she didn't have an address for him.

posted by bperk at 03:28 PM on September 21

Oh, and this from the article indicates crappy parenting to me

Oh please. The key word in your quote is 'Roberts'.

He may well be a lousy dad. It might come out that he's a terrible dad.

But you're just taking her word and a lawyer that seems to crave attention as gospel. That's fine, I have all kinds of opinions based on almost nothing.

posted by justgary at 03:57 PM on September 21

I might be naive here, but he could've served him at Fenway before a game he wasn't starting, right? The issue of whether Bedard's a good dad or not I can't comment on, but the timing seems pretty objectively underhanded-Bedard is probably in that clubhouse for several hours most days each week. Cabral does understand that these are issues that transcend what color jersey one roots for, right?

posted by brainofdtrain at 04:36 PM on September 21

Crappy dad, golddigging ex, whatever it may be, as a Red Sox fan, I've got to give this one a slow clap of respeck. Well played, Cabral.

posted by Rock Steady at 04:59 PM on September 21

Child support is supposed to be commensurate with salary.

Exactly. That's why when a father loses his job, it's quickly adjusted down to reflect his new income. Or is their something called arrears? You shouldn't be able to have it both ways bperk. He's making less this year than he did when they agreed on child support. Do you think it should be adjusted constantly or only when it allows for the children to go to fancy schools?

So he was served with, "papers in a child support case," what does that mean? What "papers," can be "served," in a child support case where the father is paying what was agreed upon and the mother hasn't been able to get an increase, through the courts? A lawsuit?

IMO, what a cocky little dickhead, wearing his Yankees jersey to Fenway to be his bad ass, little shit, lawyer self.

posted by tselson at 10:51 PM on September 21

Absolutely nothing in that article suggests that Bedard is a bad father. We only know that he fathered a child, and the mother wants the support raised.

bperk, support doesn't always rise when salary does, often one party will agree to certain terms in exchange for various other rights. For all we know, Roberts agreed to a set amount in exchange for full custody. She may have taken a set amount instead of having it tied to his salary, not knowing for sure if he'd ever get the bigger contract. I guessing that since she's been unsuccessful in getting it raised, that it was not tied to his salary. Just a guess.

posted by dviking at 10:53 PM on September 21

I don't know anything about what type of dad he is--but he obviously was "served" with something just to get attention. How stupid. And--yes--I agree with others that you shouldn't take the mother's claims and those of her attorney as the truth. The whole thing was no class.

posted by kandylynn at 01:09 AM on September 22

What "papers," can be "served," in a child support case where the father is paying what was agreed upon and the mother hasn't been able to get an increase, through the courts?

It sounds like she tried to get it changed through negotiations, but was unsuccessful, so she had to file papers with the court to change the child support amount. Anyway, how often could he be visiting his child if mother had to go through the trouble and expense of hiring a process server in Boston to give him the papers? That's the part that jumps out at me as being less than father of the year. But, I completely understand that some men think that writing a regular check is the major component of being a good father if they aren't with the kid's mother.

posted by bperk at 06:20 AM on September 22

Do you think it should be adjusted constantly or only when it allows for the children to go to fancy schools?

I don't really have a dog in the fight, but just want to point out that pretty much every state does allow for an evaluation of the support obligation if there is a change in financial circumstances of the support payer. Who files the papers for that evaluation depends on whether the support paying parent's situation has changed for better or worse.

posted by tahoemoj at 11:03 AM on September 22

But, I completely understand that some men think that writing a regular check is the major component of being a good father if they aren't with the kid's mother.

You're losing it. No one here has said that, so the insult is unnecessary.

The fact is you have no idea what's going on between them. You have no idea if he's a good dad, or she's a good mother. If she's made it easy for him to see his child, or if he's abandoned the child. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. That would be my wild guess.

You're making assumptions on the most minor of clues. You may be right, but again, you really have no idea as to what's going on here.

Not sure why that's so difficult for you to admit.

posted by justgary at 04:03 PM on September 22

I know several divorced dads, a couple of dads that were never married, and several mothers in various child support settings. The terms vary widely, and it would be impossible for anyone to determine what the terms are in this case from reading this article.

We do know that Bedard is current on his payments, which should get him at least a small benefit of the doubt. Remember, just because someone has filed suit against him does not mean he's done the slightest thing wrong.

posted by dviking at 05:45 PM on September 22

Well, the High Road was an option. She elected to try the opposite.

However, if he is a deadbeat, sometimes the best medicine is a little public humiliation. Just not sure if he is.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:47 PM on September 22

But, I completely understand that some men think that writing a regular check is the major component of being a good father if they aren't with the kid's mother.

I'm not sure what you meant by that.

Anyway, how often could he be visiting his child if mother had to go through the trouble and expense of hiring a process server in Boston to give him the papers?

That's a fair enough question but I don't know anything about him or the mother. You seem to really want to assume the worst of him while assuming the best of the ex-girlfriend.

From this link all I have to go on is that the guy pays what was agreed upon years ago, apparently doesn't keep in touch (for what may be a hell of a good reason or because he just doesn't give a crap, I don't know,) and the ex girlfriend decides the best way to get more money from him is to fuck with him while he's out trying to earn it.

Just not necessary, she knows exactly where he's going to be 162 times a year.

posted by tselson at 11:39 PM on September 22

Just not necessary, she knows exactly where he's going to be 162 times a year.

...which is why he was served where he was served. If you know someone is going to be at their place of work, that's where you serve them.

Serving him in a hotel might not be an option, if they don't know which hotel they are staying at (or security/anonymity might keep them away from the public).

posted by grum@work at 09:26 AM on September 23

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.