While acknowledging there are unique problems with determining the reasonable needs of children of high-earning families, the court said trial judges should nevertheless avoid overindulgence -- citing the doctrine of In re Patterson, 920 P.2d 450 (Kan. App. 1996), that "no child, no matter how wealthy the parents, needs to be provided [with] more than three ponies."
"[T]he court made no distinction between what needs were reasonable, given the age of the children, and what simply amounted to a 'fourth pony,'" wrote Parker, who was joined by Judges Rudy Coleman and Thomas Lyons.
"[T]he court made no distinction between what needs were reasonable, given the age of the children, and what simply amounted to a 'fourth pony,'" wrote Parker, who was joined by Judges Rudy Coleman and Thomas Lyons.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:13 pm (UTC)Where's my pony?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:15 pm (UTC)But no matter what, the court is not going to order that you be provided with four.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:22 pm (UTC)Oh no, they only have $52.5K a month to live on? Cry me a fucking river.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 08:51 pm (UTC)WTF?! The kids won't even be 4 until October.
No 30 year old needs a new purse every time they leave the house and I'll be damned if a 3 year old does.
However if they need a new nanny.....
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-27 09:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-11 03:27 am (UTC)