FanDuel - WFBC

March 29, 2006

'Love child', mother lambaste Big Unit: Johnson is suing former girlfriend Laurel Roszell for $97,000 for child-care payments he made for Heather, a 16-year-old child he fathered but kept secret, the New York Daily News and New York Post reported Tuesday. Heather, the 16-year-old "love child" of New York Yankees pitcher Randy Johnson said her star father coldly responded to letters she sent to him and that she cannot bear to watch him pitch on TV anymore, the New York Post reported Wednesday. Laurel said Johnson balked last year after she asked the 3-time Cy Young Award winner to buy a truck and computer for Heather and pay for her community college classes, the Daily News said.

posted by irunfromclones to baseball at 12:05 PM - 155 comments

This line tells you alot about the Misplaced Unit: "Johnson then demanded that Laurel return $71,000 in day-care payments and $26,000 in interest because the teen was too old to be in day care, according to legal papers. My daughter is 16 and has not been in day care for at least five years," Johnson said in a Feb. 3 affidavit. "[Roszell] should not receive a windfall for expenses she did not incur." A windfall? $71,000? What a tool. Plus a dumbass, imagine wanting to keep something secret but then sueing someone for what you make in an afternoon.

posted by vito90 at 12:24 PM on March 29

He balked? Nice choice of words. A couple of things: Laurel said Johnson balked last year after she asked the 3-time Cy Young Award winner to buy a truck and computer for Heather and pay for her community college classes, the Daily News said. Just as any father has the right to do, no matter how rich he is. I don't condemn him for this. Johnson then demanded that Laurel return $71,000 in day-care payments and $26,000 in interest because the teen was too old to be in day care, according to legal papers. He's asking for the interest back on the payments. Wow, there's a dick move ... or a Big Unit move. I can't believe Johnson started making payments when the girl was six and this never crossed his mind before? Seems like a retroactive vindictive shot at the family for asking for the extra stuff. Finally, he's seen the girl once in 16 years? I don't give a fuck how screwed up your relationship is with the mother -- you do right by the child. I'm always amazed at how high they can pile crap -- and in this case it's apparently about 6-10.

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:30 PM on March 29

This article has some real shoddy reporting... At one point it says Johnson broke the relationship off, and in another it says that she did. Which is it? If it's the latter, perhaps there's more to the story than we're hearing. I think that's reason enough not to pass judgment here. Sure it's easy to say the Big Unit has a ton of money so why would he sue this poor woman. But then, maybe the point he's trying to make is valid based on other circumstances which this reporter, who can't seem to decide if the woman's name is Laura or Laurel, is not aware of.

posted by MW12 at 12:35 PM on March 29

BTW- I agree the guy should do right by his child - don't mean to suggest otherwise. But it wouldn't be wrong to establish boundaries: it starts with a car and a computer, but then what? Or, perhaps this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of requests the mother has imposed upon Randy. All of which is not to mention the fact that 5K per month is more than enough to raise a young girl, and buy her a car, and a computer, and send her to college, and anything else she might need down the line - assuming the mother is in fact using that money to provide for the child in the first place...

posted by MW12 at 12:40 PM on March 29

I agree - I'd be careful to assign too much opinion based on this article alone. Shoddy reporting, indeed. Though I myself don't see it as a big stretch to imagine that Randy Johnson is a major league shit.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:43 PM on March 29

You hear a lot about pro athletes having secret 'love children,' but it's usually kept secret from that athlete's family to save his marriage. But Johnson (slang for dick, by-the-way) says that his family knew about this girl, so what is the reasoning behind him being such a johnson about this whole thing? The old saying goes, "You spend what you make." So what in the hell is he doing being so petty about $750 a month? He's already paying $5,000, what's a few more dollars? Yes you can say, "It's the principle of the whole deal," but come on give me a break! For his sake, maybe we don't know what this woman's background is. For all we know, she could be some druggy who's kept the money from thier daughter this whole time, and he found out. Either that or he is one vindictive son of a bitch.

posted by wingnut4life at 12:45 PM on March 29

But it wouldn't be wrong to establish boundaries: it starts with a car and a computer, but then what? Maybe she needs the truck to attend the (likely very cost affordable) community college and the computer to help with her studies. He agreed to send her to college, so what if she went to a pricy institution instead? 5K a month to put a roof over the girls head, send her to school, feed her, clothe her, health expenses and so on, really isn't an extraordinary amount of money for child support from a millionaire. And where does "it"stop? Presuming "it" is the expense like the truck and the computer (a combined, what? 25k at the very very very most?) When she's 18 likely. If he did agree to pay for her college, his responsibility to that expenses ends when she graduates.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:51 PM on March 29

I agree - I'd be careful to assign too much opinion based on this article alone. Shoddy reporting, indeed. Jesus you guys, it's not like MSNBC is the only outlet covering this. http://nydailynews.com/front/story/403993p-342083c.html

posted by jerseygirl at 01:03 PM on March 29

It doesnít sound as if Roszell was trying to gouge Johnson. She apparently took the pittance he threw her way and got on with her life. It sounds as if her mistake was in thinking her daughterís father might want to do something for the girlís 16th birthday. Johnson only started paying support when this girl was nine years old. For all we know, she could be some druggy who's kept the money from thier daughter this whole time, and he found out. Either that or he is one vindictive son of a bitch. She worked at the Lawrence Livermore Lab. She and her daughter have stayed out of his life. This only came out because Johnson sued her. The guy is one vindictive son of a bitch.

posted by irunfromclones at 01:10 PM on March 29

It just sounds like a bitter mother and daughter to me. I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money. Even at $5000 a month they are better off than most people. Sounds like were trying to get a free ride and since he didn't toss any more money thier way, they decided to give a big sob story to the press to make him look bad. Don't get me wrong, if he is trying to get back $750 a month plus interest, then he really is big unit. On preview: This only came out because Johnson sued her. You may be right, but why two months afterward? "My daughter is 16 and has not been in day care for at least five years," Johnson said in a Feb. 3 affidavit. Maybe he has a legal (but not moral) leg to stand on and the mother is mad she might have to give back the money.

posted by njsk8r20 at 01:29 PM on March 29

Johnson (slang for dick, by-the-way) Down here, the whole name 'Randy Johnson' explains everything.

posted by owlhouse at 01:33 PM on March 29

If Roszell (The girls mother) knew that their "love child" heather had no attended daycare in over 5 years why didn't she mentioned anything to Johnson or the Attorney General in her area? If I was over charged on a regular monthly basis on my car payment I would defianatly want my money back!!(I know a car and a child is totally diffrent but just trying to make a quick point)......By the way If I had the money Johnson had I would not have a problem paying 2-3 times that amount...

posted by Grrrlacher at 01:38 PM on March 29

It srikes me as sad but funny that Mr. Johnson did not know that his "love child" and I use the term loosely, was too old for daycare when he was paying it. And besides if the support was for arrears, Mr. Johnson would have to pay that regardless of his daughter's age. And on another note, does he not also share some responsibility for birth control? I know, different rant. Sorry, I just had to let it out...

posted by yzelda4045 at 01:58 PM on March 29

Let's see; I'm a single mom, late 40's, raising a daughter without a penny of support for the first nine years from her millionaire father who hasn't bothered to see her for 15 years, 11 months, and 29 days. He had to be forced to take responsibility after dodging it for nine years. He's a smart guy, when he figures out she's no longer in day care he can bloody well stop the payments himself. According to most state laws about child support, this jerk is getting off pretty damn easy. If it was all about the money with the mom, she could have put him into jail until he paid for the past due support for the first nine years.

posted by irunfromclones at 02:08 PM on March 29

Down here, the whole name 'Randy Johnson' explains everything. You know, I had never thought of his name like that. Now I'll never think of it any other way. One 6'10" Randy Johnson shoved a cameraman today...

posted by cl at 02:09 PM on March 29

I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money. OMG! The greedy bitches! Pathetic.

posted by jerseygirl at 02:16 PM on March 29

On a positive note, at least his other kids have learned not to piss off the guy that sleeps with their mom.

posted by irunfromclones at 02:16 PM on March 29

Wow... I haven't seen my father or a dollar from him since I was 3 (im 21) . But gimme a break just because you let a superstar splash off in you doesn't mean you can just milk the guy. I agree with Mr. Frazier ... do right by your kid you snake looking mullet having bastard. But the mom is bitch too. I am about to have my first child and it will take armaggedon to keep me from my baby. Lets not lose sight of whats important at least the girl is eating and going to college. My mom scraped and saved and busted ass and showed me what a work ethic and what a mother and father is.... She didnt cry about receiving 71k for a Day Care? My daycare was 43rd st park and basketball. But i had to be home before son down.. . again major props to wfrazerjr i think he hit the nail on the head

posted by Robb Dubbs at 03:07 PM on March 29

Why is the mother a bitch? Based on what? I don't really read anything particularly bitchy about her. There seems to be an overwhelming need to blame the woman. Explain it to me.

posted by jerseygirl at 03:12 PM on March 29

Here's our card.

posted by njsk8r20 at 03:14 PM on March 29

This is the starngest baseball story I have hears since, yesterday, the Rocket+ Icy/Hot= Burning crotch.

posted by Joe88 at 03:14 PM on March 29

We don't have any specifics, so how can you judge the man? I have a relative whose divorced and she was taking the money her husband was giving for child support and giving most of it to her boyfriend who was sending it back to his family in Mexico. She would then go to other family members and tell us that she was having to take the kids out of school because she couldn't afford it. What I'm getting at is you have no idea what kindof woman this is (who the hell cares if she worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab...that makes her a class act?) She could very well be getting exactly what she deserved. If my relative's husband sued her to get back some of the money he gave, some reporter could paint a pretty ugly picture of him too.

posted by bdaddy at 03:17 PM on March 29

What I'm getting at is you have no idea what kindof woman this is (who the hell cares if she worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab...that makes her a class act?) She could very well be getting exactly what she deserved. Oh I get it. We don't have specifics on RJ, so shouldn't judge the man, but she very well may be a crack whore sending money to her boyfriend in Afghanistan, so cast a suspicious eye on her. Got it.

posted by jerseygirl at 03:21 PM on March 29

Robb Dubbs- "Splash off" "Snake looking mullet having bastard" Whoa, dude. Don't hold back on us now. Tell us how you really feel. lol Great post. Right on the money. Nothing more need be said...

posted by MW12 at 03:24 PM on March 29

she cannot bear to watch him pitch on TV anymore You know, for a while in the first half of the season (4.16 ERA), I think many people in New York felt the same way. Other than that, I'm staying the hell out of this argument. Sports celebrity paternity suits are just nasty. You'd be surprised how many superstar athletes (like Mark Messier) have "dirty little secrets" out there.

posted by grum@work at 03:25 PM on March 29

I just don't know how this woman can be judged to be milking him when he pays her far less than 1% of his income a year. If she is wasting his money on drugs or her Mexican family, then I think a decent father would do more than ask for the money back, don't you think? I have plenty enough information to judge him to be a jerk. It just sounds like a bitter mother and daughter to me. I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money. Even at $5000 a month they are better off than most people. Sounds like were trying to get a free ride and since he didn't toss any more money thier way, they decided to give a big sob story to the press to make him look bad. So, a free ride is a father paying child support now? And, if your father makes $16 million/ year, you are greedy if you want a portion that would put you better off than "most people"? Do you suppose he spends less than 5K a month on his other kids? The utilities on his house probably cost more than the child support he pays.

posted by bperk at 03:35 PM on March 29

You'd be surprised how many superstar athletes (like Mark Messier) have "dirty little secrets" out there. I wonder how many Sports Filter members have dirty little secrets too? I find it very premature to pass any judgement based on one article written by a third party.

posted by panteeze at 03:42 PM on March 29

The smoking gun has the court papers.

posted by bperk at 03:45 PM on March 29

I wonder how many Sports Filter members have dirty little secrets too? Well, this message is to the SpoFi members with their dirty secrets -- pay child support that is more than 1% of your income and visit your children!

posted by bperk at 03:48 PM on March 29

Oh I get it. We don't have specifics on RJ, so shouldn't judge the man, but she very well may be a crack whore sending money to her boyfriend in Afghanistan, so cast a suspicious eye on her. i mean it makes total sense. she was the one who got pregnant jersey.

posted by ninjavshippo at 03:56 PM on March 29

For the record, I vote 'vindictive son of a bitch.'

posted by wingnut4life at 04:08 PM on March 29

There seems to be an overwhelming need to blame the woman. I don't read an overwhelming need, I read other potential scenarios. I see an overwhelming need to blame the man, which may be justified but I don't think we know enough about this to throw alot of blame around.

posted by tron7 at 04:08 PM on March 29

I will pass judgement... Any woman insisting on having the baby of a millionaire who has no intention of being involved in the childs life is a money grubbing selfish bitch. End of story. There is only one proper way for a woman to have a child and that is with a willing participant. No child should be born to unwilling parents. If there is no willing father, money is not a satisfactory substitute. Unless Johnson expressed a desire to have children with this woman, abortion or reliable birth control were the only unselfish alternatives. My guess is that she wasn't getting knocked up by poor unknowns. The fact that it was Randy Johnson probably had a lot to do with the reason that she got pregnant in the first place. Otherwise any old randy johnson would have worked. Can anybody say MEALTICKET

posted by Atheist at 04:08 PM on March 29

All the money this guy makes and he is gonna put up a stink when asked to buy his DAUGHTER a computer!!! What a guy!!! No wonder he kept her a secret, he doesn't want her.

posted by mariaweber at 04:09 PM on March 29

Sorry if I came off a little strong but I find a equal burden of guilt on both of them. Just like you can't blame one of them soley for the child being concieved in the first place. But damn she wants a TRUCK and a Computer. What about a hyundai and a notebook?

posted by Robb Dubbs at 04:15 PM on March 29

If she is wasting his money on drugs or her Mexican family, then I think a decent father would do more than ask for the money back, don't you think? Like move for a modification of the custody agreement, at the very least. If you are there for the conception, then you should be there (at least in legal and financial terms) to support the kid(s) for the rest. And I can pretty much guarantee you (except I'm not sure about California) that the support guidelines amount is a hell of a lot higher than that for his salary. Very interesting too that in those documents it provides that he should contribute towards a fund for her education that will (according to the stipulation) yield $50,000 per year for the first 5 years of her college education. So, his daughter is not a part of his family; mom has sole legal and physical custody of the daughter; there is no contact/relationship between Johnson and the kid; and he comes across as viewing her as a financial burden more than as his child (per his suit for a refund plus the fucking interest)...yeah, he sounds fucking great. You can't view this in terms of you or I or whomever, either. As in: well maybe he wants contact with the kid and so on and so forth. He is fucking rich. He can make whatever he relationship he wants a reality and he could fly her to see him, or whatever, if that is truly what he desired. But what he desires is to not pay mom and not see the kid.

posted by chris2sy at 04:16 PM on March 29

All the money this guy makes and he is gonna put up a stink when asked to buy his DAUGHTER a computer!!! What a guy!!! No wonder he kept her a secret, he doesn't want her DUH... Nobody should be forced or tricked into parenthood unwillingly. There should be a law against it. She probably put pinholes in the condoms or said she was on birth control. I think if a woman becomes pregnant, she should have to get the consent of the father to give birth. If he refuses, she should be obligated to have an abortion (at his expense) or she should have to waive support since she is making a selfish decision. If there was a law like that, just watch how dependable birth control will become. In this day and age there is really no such thing as an accident since clinically birth control is over 99% effective, and there is a back up.

posted by Atheist at 04:20 PM on March 29

There is only one proper way for a woman to have a child and that is with a willing participant. I forgot that she raped him. And if you mean "as planned on" by both parents, then there are a hell of a lot of improper children out there.

posted by chris2sy at 04:21 PM on March 29

Any woman insisting on having the baby of a millionaire who has no intention of being involved in the childs life is a money grubbing selfish bitch. You are an idiot. He wasn't a millionaire in 1989 when she had the baby. I won't even get into all the other stupidity spouted out in your posts because this is SportsFilter -- not ArgueWithAnIdiot Filter.

posted by bperk at 04:23 PM on March 29

So, a free ride is a father paying child support now? And, if your father makes $16 million/ year, you are greedy if you want a portion that would put you better off than "most people"? No, child support is meant to clothe shelter and feed a child. Not buy new cars and computers. What, because her Dad makes $16 million a year, she doesn't have to learn the value of working for the things you want? Studying and getting good grades for a scholarship? Hell, it's even a community college. Buy a friggin bike.

posted by njsk8r20 at 04:23 PM on March 29

Atheist: Au contraire. Any selfish millionaire who elects to impregnate a woman with whom he has no intention of forming a relationship is obligated to take responsibility for his actions. If he hadn't wanted to create a child he is obligated to support financially, he should have used a reliable form of birth control. Better yet, if he wasn't willing to deal with the consequences, maybe he shouldn't have cheated on his wife. Or if this is too complicated for you, just parse it down to "you are an idiot" and move on.

posted by fabulon7 at 04:28 PM on March 29

No, child support is meant to clothe shelter and feed a child. No, child support is for everything that a child needs, including a computer, dance lessons, summer camp, and other legitimate expenses.

posted by bperk at 04:31 PM on March 29

just don't know how this woman can be judged to be milking him when he pays her far less than 1% of his income a year. If she is wasting his money on drugs or her Mexican family, then I think a decent father would do more than ask for the money back, don't you think? I have plenty enough information to judge him to be a jerk. WTF are you talking about? Drugs on her Mexican Family? Are you even reading the post before you reply? I guess everyone in mexico growns and sells drugs...Fuck it let's go ahead and turn it into a Immigration debate whiel where at it......oh and Atheist very well said!!

posted by Grrrlacher at 04:33 PM on March 29

Can you say HOLE!

posted by 7 at 04:33 PM on March 29

...she should be obligated to have an abortion... Obviously, Atheist, you need to brush up on Roe v. Wade.

There are way too many scenarios that can be thrown into this issue. So, until something comes out to clarify both parties' stance and/or background, we definately should not pass judgement (except for me, I still vote vindictive son of a bitch). Just because this woman had a child out of wed-lock does not mean she purposely got pregnant. If this is what you think, then you are definately living in a different time. We don't know how long they were together before this happened, nor do we know if this pregnancy was pre-planned by either person. In this day and age there is really no such thing as an accident since clinically birth control is over 99% effective, and there is a back up. You hit the nail on the head. So why are you crucifying the woman, when Johnson (literally and figuratively) should have slipped the raincoat on in the first place! If you want to be so judgemental, crucify that dumb ass for not using protection if he didn't want the child in the first place.

posted by wingnut4life at 04:35 PM on March 29

No, child support is for everything that a child needs, including a computer, dance lessons, summer camp, and other legitimate expenses. WOW.....you forgot piano lessons,finishing school, Arabian stallion pony,stock in microsoft,summer home,Bi monthly vacation get aways....did I forget any????

posted by Grrrlacher at 04:37 PM on March 29

I can hear the train coming...

posted by wingnut4life at 04:40 PM on March 29

Image hosting by Photobucket Guess what I found, Bob?

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:42 PM on March 29

did I forget any???? Country club membership, sports car, designer dresses, $2000 per birthday party, graduation party, diamonds (to wear and for investment),...um....I'm sure I'm forgetting some too.

posted by commander cody at 04:43 PM on March 29

WTF are you talking about? Drugs on her Mexican Family? Are you even reading the post before you reply? I guess everyone in mexico growns and sells drugs...Fuck it let's go ahead and turn it into a Immigration debate whiel where at it......oh and Atheist very well said!! Apparently, you are the one who failed to read the posts before you responded. wingnut mentioned the possibility that she was a druggy and bdaddy knew someone who was sending her child support payments to her family in Mexico.

posted by bperk at 04:46 PM on March 29

Damn, I'm very surprised the Unit doesn't have many more love-children out there. I mean, look at him. That is one handsome man. Look, I'm hopelessly heterosexual, but even I can see how the hotties would be all over that, even if he wasn't a pro athlete.

posted by Desert Dog at 04:52 PM on March 29

lawrence livermore labs? don't the techie's there make like $40,000+ a year plus 5000 +750 a month? she's makin over a 100 grand a year,and she can't afford to buy her own 16 daughter, a truck? or a new computer? come'on its a cash grab..obviously ,she shagged randy,with out protection,randy's married..and she has sole custody of the girl..she decides when an where, he sees her,not him..she basically rips him off of $71,000,i'd imagine,she violated some contractual terms..so why didn't he find out after 9 years? because he was in canada playing for the expo's, so no judgement could effect him,legally...and i'd imagine there was a paternity case as well..i wonder how many other "ball"players,she's slept with? before randy was the lucky guy to have a daughter...totally smacks of greed ,if you ask me...lady give the 71 grand back,an get lost...

posted by ktown at 05:00 PM on March 29

..um....I'm sure I'm forgetting some too. ...A butler to wipe her ass, breast implants, Playstation3, escort service to take her to prom...

posted by njsk8r20 at 05:01 PM on March 29

The decision to have a baby rests completely with the mother. When a woman chooses to have the baby of a man who is not willing to participate in the childs life, she really needs to take responsibility for the consequences. If women were forced to take full responsibility for that decision especially when the father has made it clear he doesn't want to be a father, the accidental birth rate would be reduced to almost zero. When society eliminates the financial incentive for women to become single mothers, entrap men into marriage or monetary support, then the birth of unwanted children will be reduced substantially. Abortions will occur less frequently because women will be much more carefull in the first place. Men have to be responsible also but lets face it, until a man can force a woman to have an abortion, the ultimate decision always rests with the woman. A woman can always control whether or not she has a baby, if she has one it is because she wanted to. The same cannot be said for the man. Regardless of what kind of idiot Johnson is, at some point it was the woman who made the final decision. I wonder if Johnsons salary or earnings potential had anything to do with hers. I'd say the odd are pretty high.

posted by Atheist at 05:09 PM on March 29

When a woman chooses to have the baby of a man who is not willing to participate in the childs life, she really needs to take responsibility for the consequences. What about the man? If he is not willing to participate in the childs life, HE needs to take responsibility, too. There is no immaculate conception, it takes two to tango. And please don't use the "maybe she put pinholes in the condom" theory again, ok? ...the ultimate decision always rests with the woman. Go back to your happy place. This is a vicious cycle that we are going in. Bottom line -- wear a condom if you don't want kids. It's that simple. You play, you pay.

posted by wingnut4life at 05:19 PM on March 29

Atheist - spoken by a man who hates women and God. Or is that the same thing? You speak of that which you have no knowledge of, and only little wit can excuse you.

posted by irunfromclones at 05:20 PM on March 29

If women men were forced to take full responsibility for that decision especially when the father mother has made it clear he she doesn't want to be a father mother, the accidental birth rate would be reduced to almost zero. Fixed it.

posted by bperk at 05:22 PM on March 29

Thank you, bperk.

posted by wingnut4life at 05:24 PM on March 29

A woman can always control whether or not she has a baby, if she has one it is because she wanted to. Not true, Atheist. Accidents happen - ask your mom.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:24 PM on March 29

If women and men were forced to take full responsibility for that decision especially when the father or mother has made it clear he or she doesn't want to be a father or mother, the accidental birth rate would be reduced to almost zero. Fixed it.

posted by commander cody at 05:25 PM on March 29

Your "you play you pay" statement is appropo... for a hooker. But then again that is what your argument is really about. Somehow men need to pay. Trust me she played too. She just wants someone else to pay. Women need to separate the decision to have sex from having children. Condoms are the most unreliable form of birth control. I stand by my statements. Men choose to have sex but only a woman can choose to give birth. Heres a pointer, if you do not want to have a baby use birth control. If you choose to have unprotected sex with a womanizing, cheating on his wife, professional millionaire athlete, don't be surprised if he abandons you and your kid. It not a good combination if you are looking for a father and a husband. Of course a mealticket in another thing.

posted by Atheist at 05:27 PM on March 29

If you choose to have unprotected sex with a womanizing, cheating on his wife, professional millionaire athlete, You know they were having unprotected sex now? Man, you are all knowing just like Jesus, except without the cool sandals. He wasn't married at the time and was making 70k the year the girl was born, and likely a lot less the year she was conceived and prior to that. What else you got?

posted by jerseygirl at 05:29 PM on March 29

I'm afraid I'll get flamed for this, but I agree with Atheist. It's not true equality. They both played, but only one gets to decide if she wants to pay, or rather if he must. Unless he raped her, she is equally responsibile for getting pregnant as he is and both should have a say on if she should carry the fetus to term. If he doesn't want a child and she does, he should not have to pay because it was her decision to keep it.

posted by commander cody at 05:31 PM on March 29

A woman can always control whether or not she has a baby, if she has one it is because she wanted to. Not true. Accidents happen - ask your mom. Amazing. Simply amazing. Personally I think Randy Johnson is being an asshole. Yeah I understand that he may not want to have anything to do with the child and while it sucks to be the girl, I can see where he'd be coming from. What makes him an asshole is that even though he is making $16 million a year, he still decides to sue the mother of the child that he abandoned for $97k. That to me is just wrong. Wingnut I can't really say it better myself.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:31 PM on March 29

How come if a guy gets a lady pregnant and she doesn't want the baby the Man has no say, but if she wants it (the baby) he has to pay. Everyone needs to think about it. Is it between the lady and her Doctor or the lady and the man. I mean who is more important. The Doctor or the man?

posted by 7 at 05:32 PM on March 29

Men choose to have sex but only a woman can choose to give birth. Did you learn that in 8th grade biology class? Last time I checked, only a woman can give birth, right?

posted by wingnut4life at 05:32 PM on March 29

Touchdown Jesus H. Christ, there's some sorry-ass misogyny in this discussion. Randy Johnson's lifetime earnings in baseball exceed $125 million. He's suing the mother of his child for less than one-140th of one percent of that amount. Randy Johnson's salary in 2005 was $16 million. He's suing the mother of his child for an amount he'll make in two days. The guy's a dick. He was a dick when he got this woman pregnant and didn't do right by her or the baby, he was a dick on every day of the 16 years he has been in no contact with the girl, he was a dick for suing her mother over a trivial amount of money, and he was a dick when he committed perjury by calling her "my daughter" in an affadavit for this case, when he clearly doesn't understand what those words mean. But hey, there could be mitigating circumstances that justify 16 years of shameful conduct. a vindictive lawsuit, and a lifetime of unmet yearning for a child who had the unfortunate luck to be fathered by such a tool. I'm ashamed to share a gender with some of the people who are making excuses for him. There should be a law against being forced to be a father against your will? There is. It's called the law of averages. If you don't want to face your responsibilities when it catches up with you, don't sleep with anyone unless you're willing to have kids with them.

posted by rcade at 05:32 PM on March 29

Not true, Atheist. Accidents happen As long as people believe that becoming pregnant is some kind of unavoidable accident this kind of thing will continue to happen. FYI there is no such thing as immaculate conception. There is a such thing as ignorance. Resorting to insults is a sign your argument has no validity.

posted by Atheist at 05:34 PM on March 29

There is a such thing as ignorance. Admitting it is the first step, thank you for doing so. Good luck on your other 11 steps.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:37 PM on March 29

He's suing the mother of his child for less than one-140th of one percent of that amount. Irrelevant. I am not taking the side of Randy Johnson or the Misogyny Brigade, but I will say this: whatever one's impulse might be, if you have accumulated a bunch of dough, you need to draw lines. Most likely, Randy Johnson's agent/ lawyer are the ones who made this call. I don't have an opinion about who is right in this case, but you need to set precedent. I remember following the Ron Perleman divorce case in the Wall Street Journal as a kid (I know) and being amazed: Perleman's ex (I forget which one) had things like a six-figure budget just for annual artwork purchases for the child's welfare. If you don't draw a line, someone else will do it for you. It's not a man/ woman thing. To me, it's a fairness thing.

posted by yerfatma at 05:43 PM on March 29

Touchdown Jesus H. Christ, there's some sorry-ass misogyny in this discussion....I'm ashamed to share a gender with some of the people who are making excuses for him. couldn't have said it better myself rcade. can we hop out of the time machine to a day when women are more than vessels for our unwanted children and golddiggers for sleeping with men? atheist, what can i say? you should seriously be ashamed of yourself. your mom must owe you a hug or something. i feel sicker for having read this thread. on preview: fairness doesn't exist in a vacuum yerfatma. i don't think it's "unfair" to ask for him to provide financially in a way that would cost him next to nothing for his daughter since he's left all the other parenting duties to the mother. i hope all the people who talk about children as if they were bargaining chips for women don't have any of their own any time soon. you're the last kind of person that needs to be breeding.

posted by ninjavshippo at 05:45 PM on March 29

I don't have an opinion about who is right in this case, but you need to set precedent. If he's setting a precedent by suing the mother of his child, who would it apply to? Did the Big Unit squirt out a few more unloved children whose mothers need to be put in their place? He ought to set a precedent by doing the right thing by his daughter.

posted by rcade at 05:47 PM on March 29

couldn't have said it better myself rcade. can we hop out of the time machine to a day when women are more than vessels for our unwanted children and golddiggers for sleeping with men? On the contary along with equal rights comes equal responsibilities. Persumably they both had sex for pleasure, which is their right. However when she became pregnant she had, under the law, addtional rights to terminate the prenancy by abortion or to give the child up for adoption. I strongly support a womans right to those choices for whatever reason she wants. If it's because she can't afford a child or just doesn't want to be a parent. And a man should have the equal rights to the same chance to make the same decision. Fair is fair. If the sex was just for pleasure, then both had equal responsibilities for birth control and both should have equal rights to decide if they want to be a parent.

posted by commander cody at 05:55 PM on March 29

CC, this is hardly an 14A equal rights situation. They both made the decision to take the risk of having a child when they did the horizontal mambo. That was the part where they exercised their "equal rights to decide if they want to be a parent." That's the risk you run. Maybe i don't understand your point. is it that you think if the man doesn't want to have the child, that he shouldn't have to pay child support or that the woman should have to have an abortion/adoption?

posted by ninjavshippo at 05:58 PM on March 29

Simply answered? It's her body. How would you like it if someone took you to court to have something legally done to your body against your wishes? Pro-choice here, also. But let's play a little game of "Now You have XX Chromosomes." What if, just humor me for a moment, it was reversed Cody, and you were the woman. You got pregnant. Sex was consensual. He didn't want it and was forcing you, possibly with the law behind him enforcing it, to have a medical procedure scraping and extracting the child from inside of your body and killing it? Sickening thought right? Someone else having control over your body and what you do with it...? Yeah. It's not a case of rape where sex wasn't consensual. They were in a relationship, knew each other for a while before they dated. Friends. This wasn't a case of "Ooh isn't that Randy Johnson?" as she glanced across the bar. It wasn't a one night stand.

posted by jerseygirl at 06:02 PM on March 29

a woman's right to choose isn't just about an escape valve out of becoming a parent that a man doesn't have. it's about bodily autonomy, in that the govt can't regulate (beyond a certain extent) what someone can do with their own body. to say that a man controls what a woman should do with her body because of his reluctance to accept responsibility for their actions is to subvert the whole bodily autonomy part of a pro-choice perspective. edit: well crap, now i just look silly. thanks jersey ;)

posted by ninjavshippo at 06:04 PM on March 29

On the contary along with equal rights comes equal responsibilities. Since when is pregnancy equal? I made a small contribution. My wife carried three of my Sinestro-headed babies for nine months, they played hackeysack with her vital organs and footsie with her rib cage, and she got them out with a herculean physical feat at genuine risk to her life. Guys who think they're getting the short end of the stick here kill me. Want to be equal to childbirth? Go pass a kidney stone the size of a softball.

posted by rcade at 06:08 PM on March 29

There is something skunkish here.

posted by nate at 06:09 PM on March 29

a woman's right to choose isn't just about an escape valve out of becoming a parent that a man doesn't have. it's about bodily autonomy, in that the govt can't regulate (beyond a certain extent) what someone can do with their own body. to say that a man controls what a woman should do with her body because of his reluctance to accept responsibility for their actions is to subvert the whole bodily autonomy part of a pro-choice perspective. ninjavshippo, Your Mom had you. Was that an Accident?

posted by 7 at 06:11 PM on March 29

Atheist was an Accident. Woops!

posted by 7 at 06:18 PM on March 29

Personally, you all have made enough comments on this note, and they have all cracked me up...nice train signals wingnut... Can we change Big Unit to Premature Unit?

posted by FozzFest at 06:19 PM on March 29

For the record, I was not an accident....Jack Daniels had a plan for me

posted by FozzFest at 06:20 PM on March 29

Most likely, Randy Johnson's agent/ lawyer are the ones who made this call. Or his wife.

posted by chris2sy at 06:31 PM on March 29

Trust me she played too. She just wants someone else to pay. It's as if you know the details of their sexlife personally...HOLY CRAP, RANDY JOHNSON IS A MEMBER OF SPORTSFILTER! Or, you're the mother.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:32 PM on March 29

let me take a page from the senior members of sportsfilter; /posts interesting article /watches the train wreck before his very eyes /puts laser mouse to head and right clicks

posted by irunfromclones at 06:37 PM on March 29

If he's setting a precedent by suing the mother of his child, who would it apply to? A precedent about what he will and won't pay for.

posted by yerfatma at 06:43 PM on March 29

You got pregnant. Sex was consensual. He didn't want it and was forcing you, possibly with the law behind him enforcing it, to have a medical procedure scraping and extracting the child from inside of your body and killing it? Sickening thought right? Someone else having control over your body and what you do with it...? Yeah. Of course not, but I would have the right to have an abortion if I choose or give the child up for adoption. That's the point, I would have a choice, the man would not. If I decided to keep it and he didn't want to be a father he should not have to pay because it was my choice to keep it.

posted by commander cody at 06:49 PM on March 29

CC, this is hardly an 14A equal rights situation. They both made the decision to take the risk of having a child when they did the horizontal mambo. That was the part where they exercised their "equal rights to decide if they want to be a parent." That's the risk you run. Maybe i don't understand your point. is it that you think if the man doesn't want to have the child, that he shouldn't have to pay child support or that the woman should have to have an abortion/adoption? He should NOT be able to force her to have an abortion or to put the child up for adoption, but she should not have the right to force him to pay support if he didn't want a child and she wanted to keep it.

posted by commander cody at 06:51 PM on March 29

I don't know if this is legal or not, but I wrote a little more on my thoughts on this. If you give a crap, they're right here.

posted by wfrazerjr at 06:54 PM on March 29

That's the point, I would have a choice, the man would not. But he did have the choice. A choice to have sex or not. That was his point of choice.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:00 PM on March 29

He should NOT be able to force her to have an abortion or to put the child up for adoption, but she should not have the right to force him to pay support if he didn't want a child and she wanted to keep it. CC, Your a Genius. Really I totally agree with you.

posted by 7 at 07:00 PM on March 29

Thanks, fraze. Your link probably sums up this situation as well as anyone. Without getting too philosophical, human relationships are far more complex to leave to tabloid journalists or one dimensional ideologues. But, having said that, there are some seriously fucked up attitudes towards women out there in SpoFi land.

posted by owlhouse at 07:02 PM on March 29

That's the point, I would have a choice, the man would not. But he did have the choice. A choice to have sex or not. That was his point of choice. As was it hers, but the law gives her addtional points of choice to make after she becomes pregnant, but not him. That's unequal and unfair.

posted by commander cody at 07:06 PM on March 29

Interesting talk so far, but have to run until later. supper awaits

posted by commander cody at 07:07 PM on March 29

but the law gives her addtional points of choice to make after she becomes pregnant, but not him. If there wasn't legal abortion, there would be a flight of stairs to "fall" down. You're complaining because she has an "extra" choice due to biology. That's unequal and unfair. Then grow a vagina and uterus and we'll all have equal rights get knocked up, and to terminate or keep pregnancies, sound good? I assure you, all women will agree to this.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:12 PM on March 29

Is it between the lady and her Doctor or the lady and the man. I mean who is more important. The Doctor or the man? I think the Baby is.

posted by 7 at 07:12 PM on March 29

Perhaps im too close to this situation to comment: 1) im adopted, my biological mother being a 15yr old cheerleader...father an assistant football coach at Mobile High School. 2) im a divorced father with 2 sons (now 18 and 15) But what happened to the old adage "it takes two to tango"? I dont see where any blame for the child can be bestowed upon either RJ or the young ladies mother. As concenting adults they knew what the outcome of the relationship could be. I neither see the girl nor her mom as money grubbing selfish bitchs. And yes child support does include all the seemingly silly shit that Grrrlacher, njsk8r20, commander cody and others mentioned. It is all based on how good your attourny is and what kind of judge you get. I could go on about the laws surounding child support etc. but this is SPORTS FILTER and see no need in hashing out legalities around child support and a parents responcabilities.

posted by Folkways at 07:43 PM on March 29

But, having said that, there are some seriously fucked up attitudes towards women out there in SpoFi land. working in family law myself, i regret to inform you that these opinions are much more widespread than you may think. days like these i wish this site was a lot more sports, or if not that, at least a lot more filter.

posted by ninjavshippo at 07:47 PM on March 29

Ok, I think that it is time to move on...

posted by wingnut4life at 07:51 PM on March 29

Thank you wingnut4life.

posted by 7 at 07:56 PM on March 29

Your right, so shut the fuck up. Take your own advice, Mr. I've-Been-Here-Two-Days-and-12/13-of-my-posts-are-in-this-thread. You've made valuable contributions like "Atheist suck!!" over and over, told at least 2 people to shut the fuck up, not to mention the charming bleed for 5 days comment (about your mom).

posted by jerseygirl at 07:57 PM on March 29

Normally I agree with JG on a lot of things, she and I being fellow diehard Red Sox fans. However, jerseygirl, you are flat dead wrong on this issue. Don't give me some holier than thou "i have a vagina!" mirror-squatting Bettie Friedan shit. Equal rights does mean equal responsibilities: this is a solvable problem, and if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy- even if the guy wanted to be a father, a scenario not often talked about- then she also must be responsibility for ensuring the well-being of that child if she decides to have the child and raise it, against the wishes of the biological father. If the biological father consents to the pregnancy, and/or is in the marriage, he then can't later opt out- once he's agreed to the pregnancy, he's a dad now and forever, and child support as well as some custody arrangement should be the case. This approach makes sense, it is fair, and idiotic cries of "misogyny" make your perspective no more false than it was before. Seriously- you're whole opinion on this is fucked the hell up. If I came here and posted "Women choose to have sex, so if the sluts get pregnant they should live with the consequences, harlots of the old testament that they are. No legal abortion should allowed!", I can assure you your tampax would shoot across the room in rage and anger- because that idea that people are little more than biological factories to be controlled by the state is offensive and medieval for our more enlightened times. I fail to see, JG, how your "You have sex, you must pay the consequences for ever" one-sided bullshit is any different than some fundy pundit or Limbaugh- wannabe ranting about "black inner-city welfare moms squirting out kids cause they can't keep their bon-bon eating, spandex wearing, jerry springer wathing legs shut!". It isn't, they both are about grotesque simplification of our choices in life, and a puritanical desire to control other people's bodies and lives based on your "moral judgments" of how they made bad choices. If you as a woman have a biological quirk that makes you the only gender to be able to bear kids, then yeah- you get special rights on terminating that pregnancy, but also special responsibilities. Most of us realize that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand by the time we're out of high school, but I guess that's not the case with you, jerseygirl. Oh, but go ahead and call me a misogynist. However, I'm pro-choice and pro-responsibility, and deeply resent the stereotypical white male conservative legislator trying to write laws to govern your womb or your body. Whereas you are the one who thinks men should be baby-producing, wallet-opening machines. Maybe we need a child-support sequel to "The Handmaiden's Tale" to get through to you, JG?

posted by hincandenza at 08:04 PM on March 29

jerseygirl, in the words of the immortal Oprah, "You go girl!"

posted by Desert Dog at 08:08 PM on March 29

If the biological father consents to the pregnancy, and/or is in the marriage, he then can't later opt out- once he's agreed to the pregnancy, he's a dad now and forever, and child support as well as some custody arrangement should be the case. This approach makes sense, it is fair, and idiotic cries of "misogyny" make your perspective no more false than it was before. huh? hal, i read your post three times and couldn't find a point to it. you're against child support, or you're like CC and are pro a man's right to an abortion? both? i know you want to holler and yell like everyone else, but succinct and to the point works just as well.

posted by ninjavshippo at 08:14 PM on March 29

You've really got me painted wrong as some "Let's all read the Red Tent and get in touch with our va-ja-jays!" earth momma mirror-squatting vaginaologist who is trying to manipulate and trick the male species by using babies as a line of instant credit. Clearly, that's how I came across to you, so I'll try to understand how it worked you into a venomous, judgemental lather.

posted by jerseygirl at 08:18 PM on March 29

Now, regarding this case: we really don't know the facts behind the pregnancy. The girl was apparently conceived in 1989/90, so he wasn't making millions although I imagine the fact that he was a regular starting pitcher even in 1989, albeit at the league minimum rate, plus any contract and signing bonus he had, suggests he was a likely candidate to be a millionaire. However, I doubt this was a gold-digging case at the time: it doesn't sound like she was a stripper milking some dumb-as-dirt meathead out of his future earnings, but a professional in her own right- and the details of this child support is surprisingly low-level in terms of monthly payments for Randy Johnson; I'd be more appreciative if I were him that you weren't bilked out of $50,000 a month instead. It's also not entirely clear whether it was a mutual decision to have them be separated and her raise the child, with some child support, or if he insisted on being out of the child's life against her protests, but the fact remains that it sounds like this was the case from the beginning. $5k a month from 9-16 is a tidy sum (pre-tax that's almost half a million dollars over about 8 years) to supplement any single mom's income, especially when it's guaranteed to be paid out for the full length. It really is like winning one of the lower-level lotteries. Child support, even from a millionaire, shouldn't mean "never have to work again, live in the lap of luxury", and I think kudos to the mom for not treating it like that for the most part. The mom seems surprisingly ungreedy, given that the child support wasn't started until the daughter was 9, by which point he was a multi-multi-millionaire from the Mariners, an All-Star and Cy Young winner, and had just signed a $53m contract with Arizona... she could have asked for and possibly gotten Bonds' level money in paternity/alimony. So for that reason, I think Johnson is an ass for pitching a fit about this- it's not worth the time, energy, publicity, or lawyer's fees. Yes, in principle I think he shouldn't have to pay anything unless he was in support of the child at first, and only later decided he didn't want to be a dad... and I believe that it's silly to say he owes more just because he can pay more. It reduces child support to nothing more than a lotto ticket. What, if Randy Johnson wasn't the star pitcher he is, should the Lottery commission of the state of Washington buy a car for the daughter? That said, in practice I think Johnson is an ass for suing her, and the wise course would have been to meet and say "Look, I'm fine with child support, it's not a burden on me, but I don't want this to turn into some free-for-all. Let's compromise." Then again, maybe he did and she demanded even more, or maybe his lawyers talked him out of it, or something. But it's silly for him to sue over what's a paltry amount in anything but in principle, and he should have just bought the car and paid for school, or considered working out a lump sum payment now that would end all financial obligation and ties forever. For the amount he has, the real value of that money is being able to buy a simple, quick solution to problems like these- namely, offer them $250k or something to end all obligation, cover the remaining 2 years of child support, and be done with it, quietly. I think there was some talk of setting up an annuity fund for the daughter that would be sizeable, so again it's not clear if he's actually reacting in anger to what he perceives as a sudden and greedy increase in demands by the mother, what he perceives as "she's trying to get any last cash from me that she can before the gravy train turns 18". So he's probably reacting from emotion and possibly misplaced emotion, or maybe it's really his own wife that is telling him out of anger/jealousy/spite to not give a penny more, etc. There's a lot we don't know, but I think we can safely say that RJ is penny-wise and pound foolish to be tabloid fodder for a measly $97k- a lot of money to people who aren't Randy Johnson, but a pittance for someone like him to absorb if it brings ultimately peace of mind and a lack of negative publicity.

posted by hincandenza at 08:22 PM on March 29

ninjavshippo: hal, i read your post three times and couldn't find a point to it. you're against child support, or you're like cc and are pro a man's right to an abortion? both? i know you want to holler and yell like everyone else, but succinct and to the point works just as well.
I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll spell it all out for you. I believe in child support if the child was consented to, because once you agree to have a child you can't back out later just because there are poopie diapers to clean up or regrets at a loss in freedom. However, I prefer that child support not happen much, because it'd be better if the parents raised the child, period, if they choose to have it. Here's how I'd manage it, legally: Case 1: Unmarried; mom wants a kid but the dad does not When an unmarried couple/one-night stand results in a conception, the father has a right to be told in time to "consent". No "Surprise! You're a dad of a 13-year-old" sprung on you down the road, no scooping semen out of a used condom to hit the Fallopian Lottery. If he doesn't want to be a dad, or is never told, then he's not responsible for the child, and if the mother decides to have the child and chooses to raise it, he's not financially responsible- but also has no future rights, and can't one day decide to get into the kid's life any more than random- guy- on- the- street. For example, he can't have a mid-life crisis, and wish to suddenly get to know his 16-year-old daughter- DNA or no, he'd be seen as no different than any other middle-aged weirdo trying to befriend any sixteen year old girl he doesn't know. Case 2: Unmarried; Mom doesn't want the kid but the dad does If an unmarried/one-night-stand couple get pregnant, and she wants to end the pregnancy but he wants to be a dad... too bad, dude. That's RvW for you- it's her body, her choice. If you want to be a dad, find a partner that agrees with you first! This is the ace card for women: they and they alone get to decide whether they will be pregnant, or stay pregnant. All I'm arguing is that the corollary to this right is that men are not forced to be financially responsible for the decisions the pregnant woman makes unilaterally. Case 3: Unmarried; both agree to have the child, but later one opts out- mother or father If an unmarried/one-night-stand couple both agree to carry the conception to term, they're both on the hook for 18 years. If they later get married, great, or if they never marry but raise the child, also great. If they live separate lives, the parent not raising the child (typically the father, but it doesn't have to be if the mother turns out to be unfit) owes a reasonable level of child support, but should also have some ability to be part of the child's life if he or she desires. The child support should be a reasonable amount, and should go to the child and the needs of the child, and it would be preferrable if joint custody was the case instead of child support where possible. The above 3 cases would be settled basically as a contract law situation: the biological father is responsible for his decision to consent to the child, and can't opt out later any more than can the mother. Case 4: Couple already married Now, in the case of married couples, the presumption is the pregnancy decision must be mutual, and if he disagrees that strongly he should get a divorce. However, once the kid is there, it's both their responsibility to raise to adulthood. In addition, even if the biological father turns out to be the milkman... unless he was notified and consented (see the contract law above) then he is not the father, the husband is. It'd be treated no different than an adoption, even though the husband might be rightly pissed off at this turn of events. Basically, I am an opponent to the idea that men- even divorced fathers- are little more than wallets with legs, or that they can't be sometimes better parents than the mother. I also believe, and have posted here before I think, that I wish more couples who don't get along would get their heads out of that box and say things like "Wow, we are not sexually compatible any more, we don't really like each other... but we'll stay together to raise this family that we've started, and agree that we'll quietly see other people, and date, to get our happiness." I'd rather people have open marriages than get divorces, because that's better for the kids while still letting the parents have freedom and pursuit of happiness as individuals. Summary So, I believe once the child is born and being raised, if the parents choose to separate they should reach an amicable joint custody/child support agreement with the help of the courts. But I also believe that neither parent should be forced to have or to not have the child- either by outlawing abortion, or making one night of sex an 18- year- financial penalty. And lastly, I believe that for those who have kids, they take responsibility for them, and that includes wishing there were fewer divorces and child support overall; namely, that the parents realize that it is okay to stay together for the kids, but still have a sex life or social life even if you don't like your partner. If they'd only think outside the usual conventions, they'd realize that raising kids doesn't have to mean that they must give up all sex life, all happiness, to be in misery. I believe a lot of divorces could be avoided if the spouses realized that marriage doesn't have to be a prison sentence that you feel trapped in. The spark is gone? Fine, go find it somewhere else- agree to have extramarital partners. Don't like each other? Get separate beds or even separate rooms. Exercise your freedom, in other words. But for chrissake, stay together and raise the kids right, even if you have to be unconventional in other aspects of your marriage to make it work or to keep your happiness and sanity.

posted by hincandenza at 08:48 PM on March 29

Hal, that was awesome. Thank you.

posted by wingnut4life at 08:56 PM on March 29

Another pearl of wisdom from Mr. 7 I know you don't have time from writing your nobel peace prize publishing, so thanks so much for your valuable contrubutions

posted by FozzFest at 09:20 PM on March 29

well i don't agree with you hal, but that's fine. i'm more on the side of personal responsibility at the moment of coitus, but we can disagree about that and still be friends. that is, until you hear me say that the A's get the wild card this year and not your bosox.. ;)

posted by ninjavshippo at 09:29 PM on March 29

Hal, thank you for pointing all of that out...in reference(according to the fact checker) Randy Johnson was a pitcher for the montreal expos, but he only pitched about 10-15 games for them and only made the league minumum..... The rest of the time he was a pitcher in the minor leagues, where the cash flow is considerably lower

posted by FozzFest at 09:30 PM on March 29

Thank you Hal, you explained my case better then I, esp in case number 1. That was exactly the point I was trying to make about child support and responsibility of both parties.

posted by commander cody at 09:47 PM on March 29

OLDSKEWL BUT STILL WORKS!!!!

posted by Grrrlacher at 09:54 PM on March 29

For example, he can't have a mid-life crisis, and wish to suddenly get to know his 16-year-old daughter- DNA or no, he'd be seen as no different than any other middle-aged weirdo trying to befriend any sixteen year old girl he doesn't know. You mean teenaged girls will think you're a weirdo if you try to get to know them during your mid-life crisis? Damn, that's why buying the Porsche didn't work! Guess I should have listened to the wife on that too.

posted by commander cody at 09:55 PM on March 29

OLDSKEWL BUT STILL WORKS!!!! LOL! Message received.

posted by commander cody at 09:56 PM on March 29

Wow, who would have thought that this would be the post that blew sportsfilter apart. Okay, let's have at it. Yes, this makes Johnson look really petty, at best, and kind of a jerk. Despite all this, we don't know the full details, so it's difficult for us to make any definitive judgement on the man. With that being said, that post by athiest was single-handedly the dumbest, most insulting thing I have read on the internet in years, and, to quote "Billy Madison," we're all dumber for hearing it.

posted by uglatto at 10:00 PM on March 29

Wait, there's a few things missing here. Did something happen that I think just happened.

posted by njsk8r20 at 10:01 PM on March 29

Well, with this as my very first post, I suppose I won't be welcomed back anytime soon, BUT....I happen to agree with Atheist. Woman make all the decisions when it comes to parenthood. Sure, ole Randy obviously isn't as pure as the driven snow, but why are we blasting him for not seeing this child? Maybe he doesn't want to. What's so terrible about that? Not everyone wants to be a parent...should they be denied the right to have and enjoy sex just because they don't want kids? If that's the case, then sterile people and pregnant women are no longer allowed to get laid!!!!

posted by Holly1225 at 11:49 PM on March 29

Regarding Johnson's obligations, you might want to check out Nash v. Mulle. The case is an interesting read and if I'm correct Johnson may be getting off lightly. (Sorry, cannot find a link, but the case exsists. In fact I just finished reading it for an exam next week. If someone can find a link that would be great.)

posted by Fade222 at 12:01 AM on March 30

Wait! I think I saw the horse's tail move. "John Boy, you awake"? The reality is that a child exsists. He had sex with this woman and a child was born. Happens everyday. Some wanted, some not. Man up and have a relationship with your child. I think the best thing he could do for her is invest in plastic surgery not a truck or computer. Can you imagine what this poor girl looks like if she got any of his genes. WOW! A face only a drunken sailor could love, then knock up and then ship out never to be heard from again.

posted by Sailor at 12:18 AM on March 30

It's no fun being the Big Unit's love child.

posted by justgary at 12:50 AM on March 30

I don't know any single mother that will say that the father is paying enough. They always want more money Me being a single mother myself has said plenty of times my childrens father was paying enough money and this m f only had to pay 25 bucks every 2 wks and he still did not pay and every dime went on his only son my problem is not the money because i dont rely on a man to support me or my children but all i wanted my ex to do is visit and spend time and he hasnt done that so here is a woman who has said whatever u send is enough.

posted by W8tinOnLove at 01:20 AM on March 30

posted by Grrrlacher at 01:39 AM on March 30

It takes two to make a child if he didn't want one he should have put a helmut on his soldier.He needs to be a man and have a relationship with his daughter. C'mon a truck and a PC. What's that 25 30 Thousand out of his 16mil a year. What a P O S he is.

posted by MisterE at 01:55 AM on March 30

It takes two to make a child if he didn't want one he should have put a helmut on his soldier We're at almost 100 comments and 90 of them are repeats. Thank you for an original suggestion, though I don't see how attaching a German man (I assume a circus midget) to the end of the Little Unit would have done anything except made the custody questions all the more confused.

posted by yerfatma at 07:15 AM on March 30

Thanks for that nasty little visual you put into my head, yerfatma. EEEEEEEEEEE-OOOOOOOO!

posted by wingnut4life at 07:42 AM on March 30

but all i wanted my ex to do is visit and spend time and he hasnt done that so here is a woman who has said whatever u send is enough. Well, sorry for making such a general statement about single moms. But to give you an idea where I am coming from, my mother had a six bedroom home, a truck and a brand new Monte Carlo SS. My father had a rusted out gremlin and a 1 bedroom apartment. But every school year when it was time for new clothes and what not, my mom would bitch about my dad not sending enough money. And I had plenty of friends in the same situation. But just because RJ can afford to buy her a new truck and computer doesn't mean she automatically deserves it, and material possessions don't make up for years of neglect. She even said it herself ,"We have no relationship". So then why do they keep hitting him up for money? Because they spent all that money they were getting instead of putting some of aside for the day when she was going to be driving and going to college. Again, don't get me wrong, RJ won't be getting any votes from me for father of the year but like yerfatma said, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

posted by njsk8r20 at 08:40 AM on March 30

Why does eveything have to be applied to a universal standard? I mean really, can we not be remotely human about this? Johnson is suing over a pittance for a daughter he has had nothing to do with. Any way you slice it - that's shitty. It's not complicated. He may have a legal leg to stand on on but he has no moral authority in this case. He is a shit. Case closed. And I pity you poor fuckers who find blame with a woman who has basically done all that you would ask of someone in her position. She raised the kid with regular ol' support from Johnson and hasn't seemed to demand anything at all that could be remotely construed as irrational. It's pathetic. And there is no 'equality' in propogating the species. There shouldn't be. Women are more important. More is expected of them - biologically and socially. Men are inferior - it's remarkably obvious, both in concept and execution. Stop pretending otherwise.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:28 AM on March 30

I'm a little surprised that people in this thread are treating abortion as if it is a method of birth control. Giving a woman the "choice" of either having an abortion or being a single mother with no financial support seems to be a terrible way to run a society. It is shameful that Randy has not taken responsibility for his child. Having a child brings much more responsibility than just giving her money. Unfortunately, the law can only require financial support, not make someone a good father. As for where the law should be drawn, in NY, you add up the total amount of income of both parents, 17% of that sum is for the child's care. Each parents pays the percent of that 17% that is equal to their percent of the total income. It can be adjusted downward for fairness, as when here, the income is incredibly high. But, the courts are not going to adjust 2.7 million down to 60,000/ year. So, perhaps, he drew the line quite a bit too soon. But just because RJ can afford to buy her a new truck and computer doesn't mean she automatically deserves it That is absolutely true and if he was any kind of father, he could make that call. But, he has no idea what kind of child she is, so the mother is in the best position to make that call.

posted by bperk at 09:40 AM on March 30

Well it seems some people can't handle an open discussion or respect the valid arguments contrary to their own. For the record Jersey Girl. I come from a loving family and place family above everything else. I spent over $50,000 on an attorney to successfully gain custody of my 2year old son. Who I raised and is now 22. I am married to a beautiful woman and have an 8 year old step daughter who I love and raise as my own. Her biological father pays nothing. I think Randy Johnson is a jerk not because he doesn't want to be a father but because he is suing over money that to him is probably meaningless. Because he is traumatizing a young woman over what is essentially pocket change to him/ He is probably spending more on attorneys than the stupid truck and computer will cost. All of that aside, I am a firm believer in equality and choice. Until we as a society are willing to look at the root cause of unwanted children, separate sex from procreation, and stop allowing women from using pregnancy fraud to trap men into 18 years of salvery and servitude, this scenario will play itself out over and over. As the father of a 22 year son, I don't want him held hostage to the whims of an emotionally deficient girl for making the mistake of having sex with the wrong person. If you drink and drive in most states even if it results in a death the penalty is not as sever as impregnating the wrong woman. Nor is the fine or jail time for most felonies. The only reason woman are so enraged by the suggestion that a man should have as much choice as they do, is obvious MONEY. I don't think we should be able to force a woman to do anything she doesn't want. I just believe it works both ways. If she knows we do not want to be fathers, the law should protect us from being forced to. Plenty of men have become fathers due to fraud, and deceit. Women should just have to make their own choice without being able to hold a gun to the head of the man. HAL's suggestion make perfect legal sense. The only reason it won't ever work is women do not want equality, the want everything, and they want it their way. Sorry girls the truth hurts.

posted by Atheist at 10:52 AM on March 30

Most of us realize that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand by the time we're out of high school, but I guess that's not the case with you, jerseygirl. A day later, and after sleeping on it, nothing I said warranted a 4 fucking paragraph diatribe lambasting me, Hal. And because of what? Pointing out that women do have an extra choice due to biology and current law, even though, technically, it's not fair to men? Pointing out that the way society/culture/law is structured; the woman has the final say? What part of that came across false to you? What did I say that was so intolerably incorrect that you felt like you needed to shift into rage over it? To the point - The sexes are unequal in this regard simply due to biology and there may be no truly fair way to determine who should make the decision on the birth of a child. Is it fair to have the man force an abortion? No. Is it fair to have the woman have the child against the manís wishes? No. But is it what law dictates and I donít make the laws, I donít make the court rulings. I stand by what I said (and others have echoed) regarding choices, and outcomes and responsibilities. It is up to current laws regarding abortions, visitations, support, etc. Your issue with it, and with me clearly, is that why should HE have to pay if only SHE wants to carry out the pregnancy. I get that. Talk to the National Center for Men. Get involved with the cause that youíre clearly so passionate about. You'll likely never be able to force a woman to have an abortion against her wishes, but you might be able to change legislation to give a man the right to give up his right to paternity. It's a messy issue. I didn't get all "I am woman hear me roar" I didn't get remotely "holier than thou "i have a vagina!" mirror-squatting Bettie Friedan shit." I did react to some trolling and idiotic bullshit from 7 and Atheist. That I will own up to. Clearly Hal, you wanted to see something more in what I wrote and wanted me to be something to counter to your argument. And I'll be honest, I don't even know if you made valid or thoughtful points in the other two essays you wrote. Maybe we see eye to eye on issues and thoughts. There could very well be common ground. I didn't get past your first post.

posted by jerseygirl at 10:58 AM on March 30

grrrlacher, that's even better than the "Dead Horse Summit" sign. That particular graphic should be available on the tool bar along with the bold, italic, and link buttons. ps. I liked your train-wreck picture too, wfrazerjr.

posted by dyams at 11:56 AM on March 30

I didn't get all "I am woman hear me roar" I didn't get remotely "holier than thou "i have a vagina!" mirror-squatting Bettie Friedan shit." I did react to some trolling and idiotic bullshit from 7 and Atheist. That I will own up to. YES you did get all I am woman hear me roar. In addition you resorted to insults toward me and my mother even refering to me as an accident. Don't worry though, I can take it. Actually I expected it, you see one thing a lot of women have in common is that their emotions take over the rational thought process, making it almost impossible to discuss anything intelligently once it hits an emotional nerve. I not sure which emotional nerve of yours got hit, but surely it did. I'll be honest, I don't even know if you made valid or thoughtful points in the other two essays you wrote. Maybe we see eye to eye on issues and thoughts. There could very well be common ground. I didn't get past your first post. Of course you don't know if Hal made any valid or thoughtful points, you were too busy with your insults and holier than thou attitude to concentrate on a well delivered and thoughtful argument. Maybe it would be good to remember that for every jerk who becomes a father, there is a woman who allowed herself to be impregnated by him. Since no means no, and women have the right to choose, is it possible that better choices by women could save both sexes and a lot of children from being hurt.

posted by Atheist at 12:07 PM on March 30

Can I poke at it too? Atheist, you can not claim to be part of an "open discussion" with "valid arguments" when your first entry ("Any woman insisting on having the baby of a millionaire who has no intention of being involved in the childs life is a money grubbing selfish bitch.") was inflammatory and factually incorrect. Atheist and Hal, your point of view is now clear enough: you believe there is unfairness in the fact that women can choose to have or not have a baby against its father's will, and that the law should provide a similar exit for the father. Great. Understood. Highly debatable, but I'm not getting into that. The problem is that you're using Randy Johnson's situation, which we know almost nothing of, to push your agenda. This is out of line, and will not further your cause in any way. As jerseygirl said, there are lobby groups you can get involved with in order to be more effective. Also, both of you entered this discussion by blasting away at a woman. And both of you made references to condom tampering by women. It gives me the impression that you have, um, issues that are not solvable by the kind of discussions we have here. I say this in the most helpful way possible, really.

posted by qbert72 at 12:30 PM on March 30

Your sexism is galling, Atheist. I hope that you get over it in time to help your stepdaughter through some of the trying times she'll experience from a society that values women less than men. The use of the terms "pregnancy fraud" and "18 years of slavery and servitude" are incredible. The only thing Randy Johnson's out here is money. The woman's had the everyday responsibility of raising a child on her own. That's the normal arrangement when two people become parents and only one steps up and takes responsibility. The father walks. We're supposed to feel sorry for these guys because they have to pay *some* of the child support? Cue the tiny violins. As the father of a 22 year son, I don't want him held hostage to the whims of an emotionally deficient girl for making the mistake of having sex with the wrong person. Maybe you should teach him not to have sex with someone until he knows her well enough to determine that she isn't "emotionally deficient." All of this mantrap talk from bitter men bums me out. Getting married and having kids is the greatest experience of my life. Randy Johnson's cheating himself out of something he can never get back.

posted by rcade at 12:34 PM on March 30

grrrlacher, that's even better than the "Dead Horse Summit" sign. That particular graphic should be available on the tool bar along with the bold, italic, and link buttons. ps. I liked your train-wreck picture too, wfrazerjr. Couldn't agree more, on both counts.

posted by commander cody at 12:42 PM on March 30

All of this mantrap talk from bitter men bums me out. I second that emotion. There's this single place where women have more power than men, and it causes this kind of outrage. If we men want total equality with women, we'd better be ready to give up a lot.

posted by qbert72 at 12:50 PM on March 30

I cannot believe some of the things I've heard in here. I may be a Yankee fan but I'm a human being first. Johnson is being a jerkoff. I don't care if we don't have all the facts. Some of the women bashing comments in here are blowing my mind. I have a son from a relationship when I was younger. His sperm donor is a piece of crap. I have watched my son be upset by empty promises on his part. Promises to be there and be a part of his life. Seeing your child happy is more important then any child support. Seeing your child loved by both parents is more important then any amount of money. I get a whole $200 a month WHEN he has a job. But I also pay more then that in daycare and counseling and sports. I have tried to give him a way out I have asked him to sign his rights over to my husband. My feeling is if he's not responsible enough to raise him or sign him over to someone who is. And if he's not willing to he damn well better pay for him. My husband and I have been doing the hard working in raising a responsible son. If I ever heard him speak the way most of you are I would be so disgusted and disappointed in him. As I'm sure your mothers would be.

posted by jtrluva at 12:53 PM on March 30

As the father of a 22 year son, I don't want him held hostage to the whims of an emotionally deficient girl for making the mistake of having sex with the wrong person. And fathers of daughters all over America hope their little girl doesn't meet a man who's been steeped in misogyny his entire life. Men and women are responsible for birth control. Both. Not one or the other, but both. Some of the pathetic anti-female bias that's been exposed in this thread is truly sickening. It makes me thankful that I'm man enough to treat women with the respect that we all deserve. Not as men or women, but as human beings.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 12:57 PM on March 30

Jerseygirl:There seems to be an overwhelming need to blame the woman. Me:I don't read an overwhelming need, I read other potential scenarios. I see an overwhelming need to blame the man, Ok, can I retract this statement? I thought this thread would get carried away beating up on Johnson a bit too much but then it took a brutal turn thanks to atheist.

posted by tron7 at 01:07 PM on March 30

Maybe you should teach him not to have sex with someone until he knows her well enough to determine that she isn't "emotionally deficient." Maybe women should not be having unprotected sex with men until they know them well enough to determine if they will be good fathers. They probably would be more careful if there wasn't a monetary incentive. Like I said before women have a 100% fool proof opportunity not to have children. That's the normal arrangement when two people become parents and only one steps up and takes responsibility. The father walks. Who's bitter? Plenty of mothers have walked also. Plenty of fathers step up. Getting married and having kids is the greatest experience of my life. That statement only addresses your life and is typically made by someone that has accomplished little else. Although it may be fullfilling, it is not all that extraordinary of an accomplishment. A lot of ignorant people get married and have children. Making that choice does not lessen the vailidy of choosing not to get married or have children.

posted by Atheist at 01:12 PM on March 30

OK, I give up. T_B_H or wingnut, cue the nice big cup. It's long overdue.

posted by qbert72 at 01:24 PM on March 30

So glad I joined SPORTSFILTER!

posted by skydivemom at 02:01 PM on March 30

Men and women are responsible for birth control. Both. Not one or the other, but both. Sounds nice in theory but I think I will teach my daughter that young men may not all be trustworthy. That they do not take sexually responsibility as seriously as they should. That she should control her own destiny by ensuring she doesn't become pregnant until she is established in her life and happily married. I will teach her to let nothing stand in the way of her achieving her goals careerwise and family wise. She will learn how to be independent, strong and how not to let her life get dictated to her by some jerk looking to get his rocks off. She will earn the respect of others best by making wise choices and planning not by living her life by accident. I'm sorry but in this day and age there is no such thing as accidental pregnancy. It is only pregnancy by negligence, default, or deceit. Giving birth is a more willfull choice ever since Roe vs. Wade. Women fought for the right to choose, I mearly suggest they choose wisely. Because when they don't they blame the irresponsible jerk they chose. Even if he does pay money, it never makes up for the lack of a father the kid has to endure.

posted by Atheist at 02:53 PM on March 30

That statement only addresses your life and is typically made by someone that has accomplished little else. Although it may be fullfilling, it is not all that extraordinary of an accomplishment. A lot of ignorant people get married and have children. So - what, you view having kids as a concept? An adendum? rcade never phrased it as an "accomplishment". The value is what you as a parent get out of it - not the empirical evidence supporting the success of the venture. If children were products that had a measureable value I might be inclined to listen more. But they're not. The monetary incentive... Monsterous - you don't give women any credit at all do you? You call them emotionally responsive irrational creatures in one breath - then claim a deep recurring rational agenda on the other. The ol' Eve made Adam eat the apple. She wouldn't give it up without him doing so. Fuck that noise. The fulfillment is what makes it an extraordinary accomplishment. Nuts to your sad-sack reasoning. You've managed to organize all the information in a way that lays the blame for any scenario on the feet of, not just a woman, but women. Speaking in such generalities is foolhardy. But I'm not here to suggest your scientific method is flawed - it's the conclusion, the very idea, that is flawed. They're not all evil coniving bitches you know. And all men are not dupes waiting to be hustled. And Randy friggin' Johnson is not the victim here.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:14 PM on March 30

They probably would be more careful if there wasn't a monetary incentive. What monetary incentive? The average child support in the U.S. is $350 a month. That statement only addresses your life and is typically made by someone that has accomplished little else. Stop finding new ways to be an asshole. All I said was that getting married and having kids was the greatest experience of my life; I didn't pass judgment on anyone else's. My comment was no different than your remark that "I come from a loving family and place family above everything else."

posted by rcade at 03:15 PM on March 30

Weedy put the pipe down long enough to listen. I do not blame all women. I mearly point out that any woman who gives birth has chosen to do so. Simple as that. If she chooses to give birth when faced with a father who is absent, a jerk, poor, or just an ass, or doesn't want to participate, she still has made a choice that brings a child into the world with this kind of negativity. I think it is a selfish choice with little regard for the child. In the end the kid is the one who suffers. It would be interesting to see how much of the money Mr. Johnson paid every month got spent on the kid and how much the mom diverted for her own pleasure. $5000 a month (non taxable) would buy a decent house, a car, plenty of clothes and groceries. I believe in child support but where does child support end and punative payment begin?

posted by Atheist at 03:38 PM on March 30

The ol' Eve made Adam eat the apple. i guess i heard about original sin. i heard the dude blamed the chick. i heard the chick blamed the snake. i heard they were naked when they got busted. i heard things ain't been the same since.

posted by yerfatma at 03:45 PM on March 30

It would be interesting to see how much of the money Mr. Johnson paid every month got spent on the kid and how much the mom diverted for her own pleasure. $5000 a month (non taxable) would buy a decent house, a car, plenty of clothes and groceries. I believe in child support but where does child support end and punative payment begin? Why, that's a coherent arguement. I'm proud of you. Way to protect the multitudes of millionaire absentee Dads out there. God knows they need the support. And you need to send a brochure to Shawn Kemp. He's being played.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:49 PM on March 30

I'll take that as an answer to my question. It seems for you it is less about the reasonable supporting of a child and more about inflicting punishment on the quote millionaire dad.

posted by Atheist at 04:27 PM on March 30

I finally get it, Atheist. It is a mother's fault, not the father's, if he is "absent, a jerk, poor, or just an ass, or doesn't want to participate"? If a child is born under those circumstances, the father is not the selfish one, it is the mother who failed to terminate the pregnancy. It is duty of every woman to terminate any pregnancy if the father is not ready to have the child that he helped to conceive. If she fails to do so, she is selfish, putting the child through needless suffering, and money-grubbing. Obviously, a woman's moral objections to abortion are without merit and are generally used as another weapon to stick it to the man. As for fathers of some means, there is no reason why they should have to provide more than the bare necessities for those children that they choose to have. Struggling and going without teaches children to appreciate things better.

posted by bperk at 05:17 PM on March 30

Atheist there are times where the woman who is having sex thinks their partner is going to be with them for life and doesn't think he is going to be an ass by walking out. It says that Johnson is suing his former girlfriend. Who is to know what their relationship and relationships for people who have the father walk out is like? Sometimes it may be easy to tell that they won't give a damn about their child, but other times the woman doesn't even see it coming. I believe in child support but where does child support end and punative payment begin? I think it ends when the child in question finds someone they can call dad, someone who actually cares more than the person who walked right out of their life and ignores them when they try to make contact.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:26 PM on March 30

Oh my fucking god. Enough already. This is sportsfilter. In this case there is no middle ground. There also isnt any sports. FUCKING let it die, people. Agree to disagree and lets move on. You cant win an argument by typing.

posted by azdano at 11:58 PM on March 30

posted by wingnut4life at 08:26 AM on March 31

Bravo Wingnut!!! Best one so far! Opps....I just added to the thread.....damn!

posted by commander cody at 03:28 PM on March 31

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