Oliva Wilde and Jason Sudeikis divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised at her income. And that the CS amount isn’t equal between the two kids.

https://people.com/olivia-wilde-jason-sudeikis-settle-custody-battle-child-support-7974329

She only made 500K? I'm surprised too.

Probably 500k for directing. Google says her net worth is 10 million vs Jason’s of 20 million. Neither needs money from the other.

I agree, but Olivia made out like a bandit. She’s getting about half what Christine Costner is getting and Jason has a tiny fraction of Kevin’s net worth.

Christine Costner’s kids are much older and it’s not really clear there would be comparable childcare costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

You keep saying this. But it’s dumb. When both parents can afford to keep their kids in a certain lifestyle, and they are 50/50, there should be no child support awarded.

It’s clearly not about the kids. No kid needs $27000 a month to have a happy healthy life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

You keep saying this. But it’s dumb. When both parents can afford to keep their kids in a certain lifestyle, and they are 50/50, there should be no child support awarded.

It’s clearly not about the kids. No kid needs $27000 a month to have a happy healthy life.

Kevin Costners ex would beg to differ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

You keep saying this. But it’s dumb. When both parents can afford to keep their kids in a certain lifestyle, and they are 50/50, there should be no child support awarded.

It’s clearly not about the kids. No kid needs $27000 a month to have a happy healthy life.

You can cry all you want that it’s dumb but it’s literally the law. Die mad about it I guess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

You keep saying this. But it’s dumb. When both parents can afford to keep their kids in a certain lifestyle, and they are 50/50, there should be no child support awarded.

It’s clearly not about the kids. No kid needs $27000 a month to have a happy healthy life.

What is "a certain lifestyle" and how much does it cost? Be specific.

No one "needs" 27k a month. But Sudeikis' kids are entitled to it because their dad is considerably wealthier than their mom and that's what the lawyers and family law judge and the parties themselves agreed to. Are you mad about the CS award or are you just mad no one is giving you 27k a month?

[Anonymous]

It's timely that she made this move only once he got a high-paying gig. They've been together 10 years. I think she was strategic about her request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

You keep saying this. But it’s dumb. When both parents can afford to keep their kids in a certain lifestyle, and they are 50/50, there should be no child support awarded.

It’s clearly not about the kids. No kid needs $27000 a month to have a happy healthy life.

Kevin Costners ex would beg to differ.

Dumb comparison. Christine has no income and apparently no assets on her own. Olivia has income and assets. Based on the People article, the order seems to just be based on their income from last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's timely that she made this move only once he got a high-paying gig. They've been together 10 years. I think she was strategic about her request.

She left him once she met Harry Styles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why $7,000 more in child support for the 7 yr old girl than the 9 yr old boy, do you think?

I'm betting it has to do with childcare. The amount is too large to be much else because even if there is a special needs accommodation, it's unlikely to amount to 7k a month. But probably the 7 yr old requires more hours from a nanny.

I don't think it could be differences in school tuition or the cost of activities because those things would usually be sorted out separately from a child support award -- likely Sudeikis is simply paying their school tuitions and other expenses associated with their education because he's the much higher earner. The support award is meant to just even things out in terms of things like their homes (so kids aren't going from dad's mansion with a pool to mom's 2 bedroom condo) or food or clothes. Also vacations and other enriching activities. Most of which wouldn't be child specific. But childcare would be and likely.

I'm aware most of us wouldn't have a nanny just for our 7 yr old but very wealthy people absolutely do stuff like that and they are extremely well paid.

Doubtful. Jason is paying 25% of Olivia’s childcare costs over and above the child support.

Irks 50/50, one week on one off, why is paying any support?

Because the support is for the kids, not the parent. The idea is that if one parent can afford a home with bedrooms for all the kids, and the other parent cannot, the wealthier parent can be asked to subsidize a larger home for their ex so that the children can have similar experiences both places. Because it's about the kids, not the parents.

A more basic concern might be food -- if one parent can afford very high quality food for the kids and the other parent cannot, then this might be factored into a support award to ensure the child can eat the same high quality food in both homes.

Child support is not a payment to a parent in exchange for taking care of their own kids. It's a payment on behalf of the child to ensure the child has access to the same benefits of the higher-earning spouse's money as they would if their parents were still married.

Both are worth millions and no the support is not for the other parent to give an equal home. If that were the case Costner’s wife would be getting a lot more.

She signed a prenup though agreeing to way less.

Also Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde were never married.

Child support has nothing to do with a prenup. Costner was initially paying for the ex's housing, all of the child's expenses, and 5 figure monthly child support, but the ex continued to petition for more money until it backfired.

Jason and Olivia's kids are younger, and they live in cities rather than on a giant complex, so they probably carry the added expenses of full time nanny, security, and private transportation.

If it’s 50/50, they both have equal time thus equal expenses. So why is she getting child support?

This has already been explained. Child support is not for the ex-partner. It is for the kids and is meant to ensure that they have the same standard of living in both homes. It doesn't matter if Wilde could afford to provide a very high standard of living on her own; child support is meant to ensure a consistent standard of living in both homes, however high it is. So when one partner makes many multiples what the other one does, there is a support payment to provide the kids with the same standard of living.

Also, since the support award is based on the standard of living provided by the higher earning partner, it can be adjusted at any time due a change in circumstance. So if next year Olivia makes 5 million and Jason makes 1 million, the support award could be essentially reversed. It's about the kids, not the adults.

She has 10 million dollars and can afford the same standard of living as Jason. And as stated before, if the kids are to have the same standard then Costner would be paying a lot more than he is to his ex. It’s not up to the ex to ensure the kids have the same standard of living as the richer parent. It’s to ensure their basic needs are covered. Pretty sure Olivia can do that with 10 million.

And most do not go back to court to adjust payments, it’s too expensive to get the lawyers and courts involved.

[Anonymous]

Having money doesn't automatically mean a specific standard of living. You could take 10 people each with 2 million a year salaries and they could live a wide range of lifestyle. Some might live lavishly beyond their means and others would save and you would never know they were even rich.

It should be based on costs / expenses and then split.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having money doesn't automatically mean a specific standard of living. You could take 10 people each with 2 million a year salaries and they could live a wide range of lifestyle. Some might live lavishly beyond their means and others would save and you would never know they were even rich.

It should be based on costs / expenses and then split.

Maybe that’s what happened and it was a proportional split?