$31,000 a Month in Child Support–and It Isn’t Enough

2007-07-18
By

Apparently $31,000 a month in child support–that’s $31,000 a month tax free–is insufficient for Hollywood agent Adam Venit’s ex-wife Jami. It reminds me of the title of an old Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers song–”Too Much Ain’t Enough.” Venit is probably also paying spousal support.

I can’t imagine that there’s much you can’t have or buy with $31,000 after-tax dollars a month, but apparently the ex claims that her kids have found some, and are unhappy. They found some completely unprompted by anyone else who lives with them and might have an interest in that money, of course.

Child Support 90210: In Beverly Hills, the joy of raising two 14-year-old twins isn’t priceless. It’s more like $370,000 a year
July 16, 2007 
By FilmStew Staff

Based on the fact that Endeavor Talent Agency partner Adam Venit pulls in over $4 million in annual salary, a California court today denied his request to reduce his monthly child support payments to ex-wife Jami from $26,971 to $12,000 per month. In fact, Judge Marjorie Steinberg turned around and upped the stipend to $31,603.

But it isn’t this dollar amount, or the hefty attorney fees Venit was ordered to cough up, that merit attention in this case. Rather, what’s most striking about the 45-page judgment document is how it occasionally highlights the very peculiar pressures of growing up in 90210, as seen through the eyes of 14-year-old twins Michael and Sarah, and their remarried mom.

‘Even with the increase in child support since the November 8, 2002 order, there remained a huge disparity between the lifestyle the children had with their mother and the one they had with their father,’ an earlier deposition revealed (Jami’s current husband, Patrick Patterson, works for the Los Angeles Fire Department). ‘According to Jami, the children commented on the disparity. Michael, one of the twins, stated the mother only drives an Escalade while their ather drives a Rolls Royce. Michael also stated that Adam’s backyard is as big as a football field.’

‘Michael explained that it is so much bigger than Jami’s backyard [at the former couple's 5,500 square foot home in Encino, which she was awarded in the 1999 divorce]. Sarah wanted her soccer friends to go to her father’s [11,000 square foot] home to see how “cool” it was. Both twins stated that they wanted gates around Jami’s property because they live in a gated community with their father. They said they would feel much safer with a gate.’

‘The twins each have private bedrooms with their own bathrooms at their father’s home,’ it is further explained (Venit’s new household also now includes a daughter belonging to current wife Trina and two new children, for a total of five when everyone is staying at the ‘Big House’). ‘The twins made comments about the disparity in the two homes to their mother.’

The court decreed that where one party has an income capable of providing a lifestyle much in excess of the other parent (Jami), the children are entitled to life at a level closer to the “more opulent lifestyle,” even if that level of support may as “a practical matter produce a benefit for the (other) custodial parent.”‘ All in all, today’s decision would seem to take Jami from ‘Boo Hoo!’ to ‘Woo Hoo!’

The Business of Love
If there ever was a time for a radical, new approach to marriage, it’s NOW. The Business of Love, by Dr. John Curtis is the first book to show how to take the same "best practices" that build successful businesses and apply them to an intimate relationship.

41 views

  • Ray Blumhorst

    It appears that Judge Marjorie Steinberg decided the Father was engaging in “alienating” behavior by earning too much money and making the Mom look less well off. Judge Marjorie Steinberg clearly punished him financially for his “Capitalist” behavior. She clearly disincentivised such future behavior for all Fathers who might wind up in family law court.

    Deadbeat Dad if you do. Deadbeat Dad if you don’t.

  • JamesH

    Melanie Phillips in “The Sex change society” wrote;

    “The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, from men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by attitudes that appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this would be to emphasise the interests of the children.” P.123

    The above is the a clear example of how this is happening. Basically it is legalises highway robbery.

    I wouldn’t mind earing $31,000 a month.

  • Artfldgr

    the inanity makes sense if you see this as a judiciary means of opportunistic rebalancing of the distribution of wealth as in some communist state. that both parents must be equal, any disparity ONLY in one direction, creates, and to them, perpetuates the imbalances in society. totalitarian socialists i would say fits (a socialism of all forms is totalitarian, it does what it wants against the wishes of the people – eventually enough of it is in place that the courts can make ideological decisions from the bench and eventually ignore code)… technically in case you havent realized its like the sham trials of the soviet union. get within the control and pervue of the court, and be prepared to be equalized.

    the judge is a socialist, not a capitalist.. she believes in the labor theory of value, and what all socialists believe, but many dont realize, the forced redistribution of wealth backed by the ability of the state to kill without punishment. [after all, if ultimately we werent fearful of the state taking our lives away, would anyone pay 31k a month? ]

    the judge makes her money on the teat of the state, she has no concept of an actual business. Risk and such she has no feeling for. she toes the new world order line and rules accordingly she makes money of a large kind and metes out socialist law from the bench beyond the powers vested in that office. what will happen to her? she feels that if she aint punished then she aint doing anything wrong. (no absolute rights and wrongs except what ideology says).

    i dont think that those who dont share an ideological view really get how deep the feelings and hatred go towards their devils. and their devils are not the devils of some odd woman first thing, they are the devils of the defunct marxist reality and the perverted enlightenment.

    they have been taught that they are the ones to help make the change… all children of the revolution (or else why did they succeed as others pulled them up), they are about to have their god on earth rise up. their god is the state from which everything flows, and they will make their god real, and their god will smote all the devils. the devil religion will be smote. the devil of trade and ownership will be smote. well not really, just restricted… to everyone they will be smote, to the leaders they will be tamed for their own pleasures outside the site of the commons. oh, and just wait and see what fringe groups will get smote when there is no one there to defend them.

    its sad really… the wealth generated by our “evil” has managed to make all this human life possible… most dont realize that the idea is that the commons will get the healthcare of cattle… they will do the work they are told to do.. they will be like zoo animals.. they will live on zoo property.. they will own no property.. they cant leave the zoo… they cant have more than any other zoo animal. there will be no trade in the zoo… health care will be rationed and curtailed during less productive years… food will eventually be meted through id’s, so ones choices will be guided to the best nutritiously… history will go bye bye and we will be detached in time…. then eventually no one will ever know how long the process went on… mating will be encouranged and discouraged based on moving the population around, and segregation (you know, like a womans city).

    a prison with no bounds, no place to escape to, totally at the whims of leaders who will control and determine whats best for man… aint utopia grand?

    Envy, see what it creates…

  • Thomas

    Here’s the odd thing about the precedent driving these kinds of ridiculous awards (Puffy Combs fits these as well): The courts twist reason and logic into believing that it is in the best interest for the children to have the same life style only in one household. But wait a second, if a resonable support order was made, to ensure the basics of the child and then the child experienced the established life style of each parent – isn’t that more so in the best interest of the child? It is fully arguable that the child is better off being exposed to both a middle income life style and a wealthy life style. The child should experience the actual life style developed by his or her mother as well as the life style developed by his or her father.

    If we were to extend this reasoning that the child is entitiled to the life style established by the father but in the mother’s (custodial parent’s) household then the courts should ensure that other charateristics of the father’s life be imposed on the children while living with their mother – for example, his religion, his choice of clothes, level of game playing, political beliefs, etc, etc.

    Addiitonally, children soon become aware of these large support awards and use them as amunition against the parents (Both Parents!). This clearly is in no one’s best interest.

    This judge is a jerk – a pawn of a political ideology which is way out of hand and destined to destroy many families and children.

  • amfortas

    Children, like adults, are entitled to a life, not a lifestyle.

  • http://www.false-accusers.com TheManOnTheStreet

    Oh, and I am sure that if he didn’t make 4 mil a year and say only 200K, the judge would have willingly reduced his wife-suppo…er child support… right?

    uhuh…. yea… rightttttttttt

    TMOTS

  • jackal1994

    Yep, it’s socialism with a gender twist. You’re taking from people who EARN the money (even if it’s obscenely excessive–if I was tyrant of the USA teachers firefighters and cops would be higher paid than actors & agents).

    I believe it’s (nearly) futile to argue for reductions in child support calculations. It’s just an impossible hurdle to overcome the short, emotionally charged mantra the government (& custodial mom’s) have:”It’s for the children!”

    Instead the emphasis should be on shared parenting. That way fathers (who are interested) will have the children substantially closer to 50% of the time and will need a better life-style than living at his parents (or in a car) in poverty.

    Then the father (also) will be able to yell:”It’s for the children!” and quality of life between the two households will have to be about equal.

  • The Vicar

    I could live damn good on $31,000 a month, kids or no kids.

    Anyone could.






Search