And she has no biological tie to them.

quote:

---

Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson ended their brief marriage last year, but after Johnson found out she was pregnant.
Johnson gave birth to twin daughters last fall, but the babies were born four months premature and still require extensive medical care. Griner agreed earlier this month to give financial support to the girls, according to Bossip.com.
MORE: NBA Mock Draft 2.0
Griner appeared in Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior Court on April 14, via telephone, and agreed to pay $2,516 per month beginning on May 1. The child support is part of a larger settlement package the pair agreed to in an Arizona court last week, according to Bossip.

---

Pay the nanny Brittney!

Article says she agreed to pay it.

Used the title of what I posted.

You can be ordered to do something and agree to do it instead of fighting a legal battle.

Well maybe she should've worn a condom then.

quote:

---

Why wouldn't she pay? They were married and unless her then wife cheated on her those are her kids.

---

Because if they aren't your biological or adopted kids, you should not pay child support, even if you were married.

You woman want equality, time to get bent over by the system like a lot of males.

$30k/yr in child support?? Know how I know she's a man?

Even still, that's ridiculous to have to pay that much for 1 child.

Did she cheat and get pregnant or did they do IVF or something? I know she supposedly cheated at some point.

If you and a partner choose to have kids together, however you choose to do it, you have a responsibility to the kid(s), biological or not.

They're twins.

And babies born 4 months premature are VERY expensive.

Poor guy can't catch a break

quote:

---

Did she cheat and get pregnant or did they do IVF or something? I know she supposedly cheated at some point.

If you and a partner choose to have kids together, however you choose to do it, you have a responsibility to the kid(s), biological or not.

---

The mother got pregnant without Brittney's involvement according to most stories on this. Either through cheating with an ex or IFV.

Believe they got married and then the other went and banged an ex bf and got pregnant.

So griner is stuck footing the bill for kids that aren't even his

quote:

---

You woman want equality, time to get bent over by the system like a lot of males.

---

Then again, I don't think men should have to pay for kids that their wife had as a result of her cheating or dishonesty.

He should have wrapped the rascal.

I've only read a few articles but I've seen that Griner was part of the process and it wasn't just Johnson.

quote:

---

I've only read a few articles but I've seen that Griner was part of the process and it wasn't just Johnson.

---

Johnson does say that.
However, if she was part of the process, why did the marriage instantly end when Johnson announced she was pregnant? Griner went through that whole process and then decided to end it once it was reality?

Or did Johnson want babies and realized she found someone that makes a hell of a lot more money than she does, so this ties them for at least 18 years?

There are photos of Griner up on her belly.

And video.

quote:

---

There are photos of Griner up on her belly.

---

Okay.

Everything I have read was she didn't want them and put on a happy face in order to pretend she wanted them.

Anyway, they aren't her kids. If she is paying that much, she needs 50% of the custody, and Johnson needs to pay 50% of their child care and life expenses as well.

It was simply a money grab for Johnson.

Thank you for the video. Now, if it wasn't IFV, but her cheating, why should Griner still be obliged to pay for these kids instead of the man she cheated with?

Johnson hasn't allowed DNA testing yet.

She shouldn't pay if they were conceived by the guy she cheated with.

But because I love a good scandal, maybe the girls are fraternal and one was conceived through IVF and the other is from the sancho!

In a same sex "marriage" the kids will never have both "parents" be their biological parents. At least one of them will always have "no biological tie" to the kids.

Are people surprised by this!?!?

quote:

---

He should have wrapped the rascal.

---

All Baylor news is either same-sex or forced-sex

If it was the result of cheating then no, griner shouldn't owe a penny.

If they wanted the kid together and griner wanted her to get pregnant, I agree.

quote:

---

In a same sex "marriage" the kids will never have both "parents" be their biological parents. At least one of them will always have "no biological tie" to the kids.

Are people surprised by this!?!?

---

Yawn.

Adoptive parents are the same as biological when it comes to caring for them.

Are we on the politics board?

quote:

---

In a same sex "marriage" the kids will never have both "parents" be their biological parents. At least one of them will always have "no biological tie" to the kids.

Are people surprised by this!?!?

---

This is an issue with surrogacy/IVF more than 'OMG GAYS!!!" Something similar happened to one of the shrill cows from The View awhile back, and all the genitals of everyone involved were totally lined up to perfection.

http://www.people.com/article/sherri-shepherd-must-remain-birth-certificate-baby-surrogacy

Basically, if a baby gets made during a marriage, the law makes certain presumptions about parents and legal responsibilities for taking care of that kid, because generally speaking having two people on the hook financially is preferable to only one. It's a good thing there was a legal marriage involved here or there wouldn't be a second parent obligated to support these kids.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In a same sex "marriage" the kids will never have both "parents" be their biological parents. At least one of them will always have "no biological tie" to the kids.

Are people surprised by this!?!?

---

This is an issue with surrogacy/IVF more than 'OMG GAYS!!!" Something similar happened to one of the shrill cows from The View awhile back, and all the genitals of everyone involved were totally lined up to perfection.

http://www.people.com/article/sherri-shepherd-must-remain-birth-certificate-baby-surrogacy

Basically, if a baby gets made during a marriage, the law makes certain presumptions about parents and legal responsibilities for taking care of that kid, because generally speaking having two people on the hook financially is preferable to only one. It's a good thing there was a legal marriage involved here or there wouldn't be a second parent obligated to support these kids.

---

I'm not disputing that.

I just don't know why the "no biological tie" argument was even brought up. It's as though someone were assuming this was a horrible miscarriage of justice because a "parent" with "no biological" tie to a child were being forced to pay child support. This should be expected, regardless of biology.

The biggest issue I see is that society has complicated the definition of "family" so much that the only real advantage is now given to attorneys. As I mentioned months ago during discussions regarding the redefinition of marriage: What it will turn out to be is a "family attorney full employment act". This is just one example of it.

K.

The concept of "child support" is a sham for the weak minded.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why wouldn't she pay? They were married and unless her then wife cheated on her those are her kids.

---

Because if they aren't your biological or adopted kids, you should not pay child support, even if you were married.

---

Most state laws are clear with respect to paternity of children born during a marriage. It is presumed and must be fought to be judicially changed.

quote:

---

Johnson hasn't allowed DNA testing yet.

---

Griner hasn't petitioned for it and a court hasn't ordered it either.