Anonymous wrote:I was just at that restaurant (82 Queen) that the girls lunched at. Their cheese grits are to die for!

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching tonight? I CANNOT stand Landon!

And how do these people not sweat at all of their outdoor events? I'm surprised at the men in jackets at these events.

Anonymous wrote:Kathryn doesn't want a set support and custody amount because then she loses her control over him. If the court says in exchange for the guarantee of $X a month Thomas gets X days a month with the kids, her ability to get him to respond to her whims in order to see the kids is gone. The court will make sure he sees his kids, not her. She can't just not let him see the kids as punishment for some personal infraction against her if she has a court order for support and visitation, so she's not pushing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.

Yes, he's referenced this several times. He clearly wants the kids as much as possible - granted they will likely spend most of their time with the nanny, but they do that anyway when they are with Kathryn.

Several other blogs have referenced a text exchange between Kathryn and her dealer. Thomas is no doubt behind their exposure or at the very least knows about the existence of these texts. I'm sure he really doesn't want his kids around a drug dealer and their strung-out mother.

Yeah, no. Thomas is making up crap in terms of what the law is in SC. Any parent has the right to seek an arrangement in Court. That said, child support isn't capped at any specific amount. Instead, it's set up based on the parent's assets/income. My guess is Thomas either has sheltered assets or is not nearly as wealthy as he is on paper to avoid paying child support. Skeezy, but happens.

It drives me crazy every time he talks about paying 2500 or whatever and talks about child custody laws in SC. Anyone with a modicum of sense and knowledge about the legal system would point out how much this doesn't make sense. Child support is to keep the child in similar living conditions at both homes. It's not a capped amount and yes, it's not alimony.

What I don't understand is why Katherine isn't seeking some sort of formal legal arrangement with Thomas and getting child support like a normal person. There's much, much more at play here that we aren't seeing.

Actually, he's pretty close. It's capped at $2600/mo. for two kids.

http://www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/forms/2014guidelines.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.

Yes, he's referenced this several times. He clearly wants the kids as much as possible - granted they will likely spend most of their time with the nanny, but they do that anyway when they are with Kathryn.

Several other blogs have referenced a text exchange between Kathryn and her dealer. Thomas is no doubt behind their exposure or at the very least knows about the existence of these texts. I'm sure he really doesn't want his kids around a drug dealer and their strung-out mother.

Yeah, no. Thomas is making up crap in terms of what the law is in SC. Any parent has the right to seek an arrangement in Court. That said, child support isn't capped at any specific amount. Instead, it's set up based on the parent's assets/income. My guess is Thomas either has sheltered assets or is not nearly as wealthy as he is on paper to avoid paying child support. Skeezy, but happens.

It drives me crazy every time he talks about paying 2500 or whatever and talks about child custody laws in SC. Anyone with a modicum of sense and knowledge about the legal system would point out how much this doesn't make sense. Child support is to keep the child in similar living conditions at both homes. It's not a capped amount and yes, it's not alimony.

What I don't understand is why Katherine isn't seeking some sort of formal legal arrangement with Thomas and getting child support like a normal person. There's much, much more at play here that we aren't seeing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.

Yes, he's referenced this several times. He clearly wants the kids as much as possible - granted they will likely spend most of their time with the nanny, but they do that anyway when they are with Kathryn.

Several other blogs have referenced a text exchange between Kathryn and her dealer. Thomas is no doubt behind their exposure or at the very least knows about the existence of these texts. I'm sure he really doesn't want his kids around a drug dealer and their strung-out mother.

Yeah, no. Thomas is making up crap in terms of what the law is in SC. Any parent has the right to seek an arrangement in Court. That said, child support isn't capped at any specific amount. Instead, it's set up based on the parent's assets/income. My guess is Thomas either has sheltered assets or is not nearly as wealthy as he is on paper to avoid paying child support. Skeezy, but happens.

It drives me crazy every time he talks about paying 2500 or whatever and talks about child custody laws in SC. Anyone with a modicum of sense and knowledge about the legal system would point out how much this doesn't make sense. Child support is to keep the child in similar living conditions at both homes. It's not a capped amount and yes, it's not alimony.

What I don't understand is why Katherine isn't seeking some sort of formal legal arrangement with Thomas and getting child support like a normal person. There's much, much more at play here that we aren't seeing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.

Yes, he's referenced this several times. He clearly wants the kids as much as possible - granted they will likely spend most of their time with the nanny, but they do that anyway when they are with Kathryn.

Several other blogs have referenced a text exchange between Kathryn and her dealer. Thomas is no doubt behind their exposure or at the very least knows about the existence of these texts. I'm sure he really doesn't want his kids around a drug dealer and their strung-out mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think Kathryn is Borderline. Her reaction at the polo match was totally something I could see my borderline MIL doing.

I thought the exact same thing. It was disturbing to watch. If anyone doubts that b is crazy, simply watch that scene.

Couldn't agree more!

And didn't make sense at all. He invited her to a polo match... Of course there would be socializing and a party atmosphere. Also picked up on JD and his wife trying to calm her and say we can get rid of any alcohol if that is what's upsetting you - bizzare. She does remind me of my sister who has bpd.

She should have just said no. She's very pregnant and the Polo match was 3 hours - ONE WAY - with a toddler. Then she gets there and the baby just wants to chase horses, rightfully scaring the crap out of her and her friend. I'd have left too.

That was VERY selfish of T-Rav to expect her to come. I think she did it out of a sense of obligation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.

Yes, he's referenced this several times. He clearly wants the kids as much as possible - granted they will likely spend most of their time with the nanny, but they do that anyway when they are with Kathryn.

Several other blogs have referenced a text exchange between Kathryn and her dealer. Thomas is no doubt behind their exposure or at the very least knows about the existence of these texts. I'm sure he really doesn't want his kids around a drug dealer and their strung-out mother.

what? please posts these websites about kathryn texting her dealer (i'm not saying i don't believe it, but would like to see). Thomas has done lots and lots of coke in his day among other things. I mean he can't really claim the anti-drug card.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.

Yes, he's referenced this several times. He clearly wants the kids as much as possible - granted they will likely spend most of their time with the nanny, but they do that anyway when they are with Kathryn.

Several other blogs have referenced a text exchange between Kathryn and her dealer. Thomas is no doubt behind their exposure or at the very least knows about the existence of these texts. I'm sure he really doesn't want his kids around a drug dealer and their strung-out mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He could take her to court too. All he has to do is claim and establish paternity and sue for visitation. But then he might actually have to have his kids 50% of the time and he loses the "she keeps my baby from me" ploy and would possibly have to stop running his mouth in the press about what a terrible mother she is. They're both using it to their dubious advantage.

He can't get visitation in SC, as they weren't married. He keeps mentioning that in SC, if the parents are unmarried, even if legal paternity is established, the mother still has control over custody and visitation arrangements. So in this case, Kathryn can, by state law, keep him from ever seeing the spawn. Unless he wants to work on getting that law changed, which might be good, considering he's played at politics before, maybe he should just get a solid prenup, make sure she can't access his money, and then marry her. They can then live in the separate places, or he can divorce her and get more custody.