Some people have noted that it often seems easier for rich people to get custody of their children. For example, Ludacris—a musician with millions in assets—got custody of his child when he fought for it, and people speculated that it was just based on his money, rather than what the child needed.
The mother of the child went a step further. She said that the only reason he wanted to have custody of the young child was so that he would not be ordered by the court to pay child support. Reports indicated that he could have had to pay as much as $7,000 every month.
The woman also argued that she would be a better caretaker for the child, noting that Ludacris was very busy with his career. As a result, it was only logical that he’d need a lot of help, probably in the form of nannies. She, on the other hand, could directly care for the child.
Naturally, the other side of the debate, some have argued, is that those with a lower income than the other parent may not even use the money for its intended purpose. With $7,000 per month, they’d argue, she could just live off of the money without having to work, bringing in $84,000 a year. Even if it was supposed to be used for the child, it may not be. In that sense, she may not have the child’s best interests at heart either; both sides may just be thinking about money.
Cases like this have caused a lot of debate over the years, so it’s important for those in Arizona to know what role wealth can play in custody cases.
Source: Hers Magazine, “Are Good Mothers Losing Custody to Rich Men?,” Annette Johnson, accessed Nov. 05, 2015