Another black child of a celebrity exposes her dad: Thanks Romeo !

[CreepyMcCreeperson]

lol he's been fighting for years and money doesnt guarantee 50/50 there is custodial and noncustodial period. He also has a family himself. So he shows up and pays for things that most men won't pay for the mother gets no blame for finances but the father gets all the blame?

You can't have it both ways if the father isn't an ATM then the mother should get blame since she got child support. He pays for things and you as the father lead you don't beg your child for validation.

Many parents do everything for their children and are still disrespected she is an adult now this relationship seems toxic and he should just cut it off.

His court battles were related to child support. He has provided financially, but that does not mean he was actively involved, or communicating regularly. Giving money, and talking from time to time does not make a good father. And the custodial parent will always contribute more. The mother has to drive the kid around, pick them up, buy gifts for birthday parties, and pay the bills in the house. We view it as we shouldn’t have to pay for the woman to live, but if the child is living with the mother, the kid still needs the heat, water, electricity, and food to feed the kid. If you don’t want any money going to the mother, go to court for 50/50, or full custody. But most men aren’t trying to get full custody from these hoodrats, because they don’t want to be changing diapers, driving the kid around, and doing all the work it takes to raise a child. So don’t complain about child support.

But in this case, the mother was obviously trying to have mansions, luxury cars, etc, and felt entitled to him paying for it.

 

[MajesticLion]

 

[Colicat]

This is how I know you clowns are reaching to stick to your original conclusion.

Someone goes out of their way to ensure their adult child has a roof over their head and you're just writing it off as a financial burden, nothing more than a bill?


She didn't mention what she did during the summer. What she mentioned is that when she didn't have a roof over her head, he stepped into change that. That is providing your child with protection (unconditional love is not tested by this scenario).

No need to be so emotional.

Basic provision is not the only component of unconditional love …protection, time, loyalty, genuine concern, looking after your child’s mental and emotional health amongst other things make up the love between a father and daughter. Not sure if you have a daughter, but you are going to have to do far more than pay her rent.

Putting her up in a dorm versus setting up a room in his house (making space in his life for her) is a form of emotional neglect that is too nuanced for someone like yourself to understand.

One requires no emotional investment whatsoever.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

Folks need to stop being quick with judgement. We just saw it here in the Brian McKnight thread.

 

[Umoja]

No need to be so emotional.

Basic provision is not the only component of unconditional love …protection, time, loyalty, genuine concern, looking after your child’s mental and emotional health amongst other things make up the love between a father and daughter. Not sure if you have a daughter, but you are going to have to do far more than pay her rent.

Putting her up in a dorm versus setting up a room in his house (making space in his life for her) is a form of emotional neglect that is too nuanced for someone like yourself to understand.

One requires no emotional investment whatsoever.

What is the point in saying things that are not in contention? I just said that "unconditional love" is not tested in the scenario of him stepping in when she was homeless so there is no need to step in talking about the different components of unconditional love. I'm aware that it is not displayed by him ensuring she had a roof over her and I accept that she might have cause to feel resentment if she wasn't around.

What is not accepted is you trying to dismiss him taking steps to ensure she had a roof over her head when she became homeless. Her being homeless represents an issue with more than 1 way to solve.

Only amongst the most deluded pricks in the world is providing your child with a dorm whilst they're at university something to look down on. His actions ensured that she could continue to study at university, whilst having a roof over her head, and retain the independence that comes with not living with her parents.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Why are we assuming she's telling the truth?​

 

[breakfuss]

​

That’s some fukk shyt . Excuses to be a deadbeat.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That’s some fukk shyt . Excuses to be a deadbeat.

He's not a deadbeat, though. If you can't avoid drama due to baby mama and the child's perception of you cannot be swayed regardless of what you do, there is no other option to retain your own sanity.​

 

[YakSpiller]

Awwww here it goes!

Buzzer beater for post of the year

 

[Colicat]

What is the point in saying things that are not in contention? I just said that "unconditional love" is not tested in the scenario of him stepping in when she was homeless so there is no need to step in talking about the different components of unconditional love. I'm aware that it is not displayed by him ensuring she had a roof over her and I accept that she might have cause to feel resentment if she wasn't around.

What is not accepted is you trying to dismiss him taking steps to ensure she had a roof over her head when she became homeless. Her being homeless represents an issue with more than 1 way to solve.

Only amongst the most deluded pricks in the world is providing your child with a dorm whilst they're at university something to look down on. His actions ensured that she could continue to study at university, whilst having a roof over her head, and retain the independence that comes with not living with her parents.

You are so emotional about this. Are you ok? Breh people are repeating things that are “not in contention” because you are missing the point.

I am not dismissing things. I am minimizing his financial contributions because you are elevating it as if it excludes him from actually loving on his child.

But be blessed. No need to go back and forth. You are committed to thinking that Kel paying her rent and tuition equated to him loving his child.

 

[Will Ross]

It takes real actions to make a girl have issue with her dad.

 

[Colicat]

He took care of his seed. The daugter hates him anyway so I don't get your point

Can you explain how he “took care” of his child?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

It takes lies from a spurned baby mama to make a girl have issue with her dad.

**FIXED**​

 

[Umoja]

You are so emotional about this. Are you ok? Breh people are repeating things that are “not in contention” because you are missing the point.

I am not dismissing things. I am minimizing his financial contributions because you are elevating it as if it excludes him from actually loving on his child.

But be blessed. No need to go back and forth. You are committed to thinking that Kel paying her rent and tuition equated to him loving his child.

You are repeating shyt because you want me to adopt the stance that convenient for the bullshyt you're writing.

Never said Kel ensuring his daughter had a roof over her head was proof that he loved her. Made it crystal clear that I can understand her resentment if he wasn't around for her and that it is scummy if he didn't include her on health care to ensure the mother didn't benefit.

What I'm not doing, and this is the thing you're taking issue with, is trivialising the fact that when she was homeless, he stepped in to ensure she had a roof over head which allowed her to continue with her studies.

You say that that isn't a sign of unconditional love. I'm not arguing that is but you need to characterise what I am saying as such to cover up the fact that you're speaking from your ass.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Being active in your children's lives beyond doing the bare minimum.

Clever pun there pal