In family court, parents cannot avoid financial responsibility for their children by claiming they are too busy, pursuing education, or that their children are 'mistakes'; courts prioritize the child's welfare and require parents to provide financial support regardless of personal circumstances or excuses.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
9 Parents Walked Into Court Smiling — Judge Vonda B Changed Everything!Añadido:
Mr. Paul.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> How are you?
>> I'm good. How are you?
>> Good. Good to see you back.
>> Good to see you.
>> Okay. All right. And the last time you were here, we were here for your daughter. You had both her children.
>> Okay. Who is this?
>> This is my youngest daughter, Kayla. And we have her kids now. So, we're trying to uh somehow get some more income because she's not giving us really nothing. And we just >> You all are just that great of grandparents. Your children want to leave their children with you.
>> Well, they did such a good job raising me. They >> excuse me.
>> Excuse me. Miss Paul, give me an opportunity to speak with your parents and I promise you I would come over here to you. Okay.
>> Got it.
>> Okay.
>> I think my mama always been jealous of me, honestly. But that's a whole another story for a whole another day.
>> All right, guys. This one starts with grandparents walking into court carrying a burden they never expected to have.
They already stepped up once to raise grandchildren, and now they're back because another daughter has left a newborn in their care. What begins as a child support hearing quickly turns into a shocking look at responsibility, family tension, and a young mother who seems to see things very differently from everyone else in the courtroom. Did she truly need help or was she avoiding accountability?
>> Sounds like y'all need therapy court instead of support court.
>> Jealous of her.
>> That's what she said.
Hm. Is that why she You went missing for a year and a half?
>> Missing?
>> I was taking care of business >> at 16?
>> Yes.
>> What kind of business at 16?
>> You know what? Let's Let's finish this business.
>> Thank you, Judge.
>> With the child up in my business.
>> Well, you started it, but I'm going to continue it from here. Okay.
>> All right.
>> I believe she doesn't have any business since we have her child >> living with us.
>> How old is this child?
>> What is he? 6 months now.
>> Six months. Yeah.
>> The moment the daughter claims her mother has always been jealous of her, the entire tone of the case changes.
Instead of focusing on the child, the conversation drifts toward old family wounds and personal grievances. But notice what the judge does here. She immediately redirects everyone back to the central issue. In family court, past drama might explain behavior, but it rarely excuses neglect. Do you think unresolved family conflict played a role here, or is that just a distraction?
>> Oh, it's a newborn. Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> You left your newborn baby with your parents >> every day.
>> Well, I mean, people make mistakes and so he's a mistake.
>> Wow.
>> You knew what you were doing.
>> If I could take it back, I would honestly. But >> if you can take what back >> really >> everything that's happened over the last year and a half.
>> So, you were pregnant within the last year and a half. Are you speaking about taking that back? make mistakes all the time.
>> Our grandchild is not a mistake. Okay.
>> I'm going to I'm going to act like you did not just say that.
>> Yes.
>> I'm going to act like you did not just say that.
>> Wow.
>> And we're going to move forward with what's going on today.
>> The reality is is that you have a six-month-old baby boy >> who you passed off to your parents.
>> Okay.
>> Mhm. This may be one of the most uncomfortable moments in the hearing.
When the mother refers to the circumstances surrounding her baby as a mistake, the courtroom practically freezes. The judge quickly draws an important distinction. Poor decisions can be mistakes, but a child is not.
That correction isn't just emotional, it's legal. Courts focus on the child's welfare, regardless of how the child came into the world. Did this moment change how you viewed the mother's attitude toward her responsibilities?
Is that a yes?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. They're here today because they want you to pay child support for your son.
>> Okay. Uh in my defense during they like set up the baby shower and all of that.
I never saw any of that. And as the baby shower, they let me know that if it was anything that I need, they would they would be there >> and I need them right now. So, they should be here.
>> Wait. Hold on.
>> Excuse me.
>> Let's rewind. Mrs. Paul, give me one minute. Okay. Give me one minute. Let's rewind something. They threw you a baby shower and told you whatever you needed, they would be there to help, right?
>> Mhm.
>> Not to Is that a Yes, ma'am?
>> Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry.
>> They said they would be there to help, not necessarily take parentage away from you for your child. You understand that, right?
>> I understand.
>> They're grandparents. They're not parents.
>> Exactly.
>> Yes. So, >> don't you believe you should be financially supporting your baby boy while he's with your parents?
>> Hello.
>> I do. But at the same time, y'all doing it for Christy. Why can't you do it for me?
>> Well, and you think that's right.
>> That had nothing to do with that.
>> I mean, it's just it's only fair. So, because they have your sister's children, >> they should take in a new baby.
>> I only had two of my own kids.
>> Well, you going to do whatever you want.
>> That Mrs. Mrs. Paul, >> I'm trying. I'm trying. I'm actually trying.
>> Hold on one second. Miss Paul, Mrs. Paul, >> you are asking some great questions, but they should come from me. Okay.
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
>> Just give me a minute. Just give me a minute. I understand the frustration.
You all are grandparents.
>> Now, we hear the mother's main defense.
Her parents promise to help during the pregnancy, and she believes that promise means they should continue raising the child. But the judge sees a major flaw in that logic. Support from grandparents is meant to assist a parent, not replace one. The difference between helping and becoming the full-time caregiver is huge. At what point does family support stop being help and start becoming unfair dependents?
>> I remember correctly, um, Mr. Paul retired.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And and you all have inherited a newborn baby, so I can definitely understand the frustration, but just give me a moment to get your daughter's side of the story here. Okay.
>> As the daughter compares her situation to her sisters, frustration starts building on both sides. The judge refuses to let the conversation become a sibling competition. That's a key courtroom strategy. Every case stands on its own facts. Whether someone else received help doesn't erase a parents obligations. The grandparents aren't asking for special treatment. They're asking not to carry yet another parenting role. If you were in their position, would you have stepped in for the baby, too?
>> Okay. Yeah. Because I should be living my best life right now.
>> You say that baby >> traveling, seeing the world.
>> I do not necessarily disagree with that.
>> They always act broke. It's crazy.
Whether they act like they have money or broke, the point is is that they have raised you and your sister. They should not be raising you and your sister's children.
>> Yes, ma'am. I hear that. But I'm actually trying. I've graduated high school. Congratulations. Residency school. Congratulations. Christie, on the other hand, >> we're not talking about her doing anything. Excuse me. We're not talking about Christy. We're here to talk about you. Let's not put any blame or anything on her. First of all, she's not here to defend herself, >> right?
>> Secondly, we're talking about a newborn baby here that belongs to you.
>> Mhm.
>> So, >> yes, ma'am.
>> Congratulations for graduating high school, being in school >> a year later, >> but you're a parent now.
>> Amen.
>> You're a parent now.
>> The mother points to graduating high school and pursuing her education as proof she's trying. And to be fair, those accomplishments matter. But the judge highlights an important reality.
Becoming a parent changes the equation.
Success in school doesn't cancel out responsibility at home. Courts often recognize personal goals, but the child's needs come first. It's a difficult balance, and many parents face it every day. Should educational ambitions ever outweigh parenting duties?
>> And that's where I come in to make sure that you financially take care of this child, especially since the child doesn't live with you.
>> Exactly.
>> And hasn't lived. She only kept him for a week.
>> A week, your honor.
>> Miss Paul, is that true?
>> Well, I had to get back to school.
>> So, the answer is yes.
>> I'm out here trying to save lives. I mean, yes, but >> but you're not trying to save your own baby's life.
>> Exactly.
>> What make that make sense?
>> When I have the time I see him >> when the last time you came and seen >> I was just there last week.
>> After 5 minutes.
>> I I will make time. How is that beside?
This is their first time bringing up the time situation to me. So when it becomes a problem and they let me know, then I will make time.
>> Okay. But it's your baby. This is a baby. A six-month-old needs a lot more time. Attention.
>> Exactly.
>> I don't have that diaper change.
>> I gave him Well, you didn't give him you.
>> Well, that's why he's with you all because you all have time.
>> We don't have time.
>> You're retired. You What? You have nothing but time. We want to travel and live.
>> Well, take him with y'all.
>> Miss Paul. Miss Paul. Miss Paul.
>> Miss Paul.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Your parents came in here not to waste my time.
>> Thank you.
>> Then comes a revelation that shocks everyone. The mother only kept the baby for about a week before the grandparents took over. Even more damaging is her argument that retired grandparents have nothing but time. That's exactly where public sympathy starts shifting.
Retirement doesn't create a legal obligation to raise grandchildren. These grandparents plan for a different stage of life, yet they've become full-time caregivers again. Were you surprised by how casually she seemed to view their sacrifice?
>> You obviously with everything you're saying is wasting my time because it's making zero sense.
Zero. Do you know how many parents have gone to school?
>> Excuse me, I'm talking to you. address me.
>> I'm sorry. Yes.
>> Do you know how many parents have gone to school and have raised minor children? It happens every day.
>> Every single day. So, you're not doing anything that's special.
But since you're choosing this route, then your parents have to do what they have to do and make sure that you're at least financially supporting these children. Now, how much is it that you're making?
>> I make about 48,000. Here they go.
>> They didn't even know you were making this kind of money >> for >> I mean >> I mean answer the question. It's a yes or a no.
>> No.
>> You didn't tell your parents you're making this kind of money.
>> I didn't feel like I had to.
>> Why would you feel like that?
>> Because it's my name that's on the check and not the >> You know what? Let me let me let me move over.
>> The judge's patience finally reaches its limit. She points out that countless parents attend school, work jobs, and still raise young children. It's a powerful reality check. Then another surprise emerges. The mother earns around $48,000 a year, and her parents didn't even know it. That detail changes the financial picture completely. This is no longer a case about inability to contribute. It's about whether she chose not to. How much did that income revelation affect your opinion >> to your parents for one second? this little selfish little girl of ours. Oh my lord.
>> What is this about? Do what type of relationship do you all have?
>> Well, we thought we thought it was pretty good, but evidently it's worse off than I thought. I mean, we get we we raised her to be a better person, but evidently she went off track somehow.
>> But >> probably that Okay, >> she went astray for a year and a half when she was 16.
>> What I want to know is who's the father?
I mean, what is the father doing? I mean, >> you know, that is a good question, Mr. Paul. Where is this child's father?
>> Do you even know?
>> Probably in Hawaii with his wife or something.
>> Oh, I mean, >> he's married.
>> I said it was a mistake.
>> I said it was a mistake.
>> Oh, >> okay. Now it's it's making call what you did was a mistake, but the baby is not a mistake.
>> Exactly.
>> Okay. the only >> well the mistake in the family. So kind of all sound like a mistake to me >> as the parents describe feeling blindsided by their daughter's behavior.
Another layer of the story comes into focus. The father of the child is reportedly married and living elsewhere.
Suddenly the mistake comments start making more sense emotionally but they don't change the legal reality. Family court doesn't assign responsibility based on regret or embarrassment. It focuses on who must support the child now. Do difficult circumstances make the mother's choices more understandable or less excusable?
>> Hey, well, you know what? I'm not going to mistake these child support numbers once I give them to you. Okay. Now, you said you make about $48,000 a year. Is that correct?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> All right. So, that brings your gross to $4,000, making your net $3,3568.
Do you have any other children?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> I don't know.
>> Don't.
>> Mr. Paul, what was that?
>> Trust me, I don't. And I don't know.
>> She may have some more that we don't know about. So, >> okay. Well, hopefully if that's the case, you all do not have to take those kids in either.
>> Thank you.
>> Huh, Miss Paul. I mean, that was This is ridiculous.
You left that baby with your parents, do not provide any financial support, and then have the audacity not even to tell your parents how much money you're making.
>> That's just wrong.
>> I didn't think that I had to tell them how much money comes into >> No, my >> No, ma'am. No, ma'am.
>> Really?
>> You're wrong. And I'm not going to sit up here and play like you're not.
>> This is where emotion gives way to mathematics. The judge calculates income, expenses, and support obligations step by step. Family court often works this way. Once the facts are established, the numbers follow legal guidelines. But what makes this moment powerful isn't the calculation itself.
It's the judge's direct criticism of the mother's secrecy and lack of financial support. Accountability is no longer theoretical. It's about to come with a monthly price tag.
>> I'm telling you to your face, you're wrong. So net is $3,3568.
Who can never mind. How much is health insurance for this baby?
>> What?
>> It's like 250.
>> 250. Yeah. 250 >> for the baby alone? Yes.
>> Okay. All right.
>> All right. So, we're also going to make you reimburse health insurance of $250.
Excuse me.
>> That bring Oh, did you not hear me? You want me to say it a little louder? is $250 for a health insurance reimbursement.
Okay. Plus your child support obligation of $671.
>> Yes.
>> That brings monthly child support to $921.
And you know what? And you know what? I I missed something. I missed something because your parents your parents asked for back pay.
>> Hello.
>> They asked for back pay since the baby has been living with them. That comes out to $5,526 and I'm going to have you reimburse that at $100 a month. So that $921 plus an additional $100 comes out to $1,021 that you're going to be paying your parents every month.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> You're welcome.
>> Even though I was I was coming to visit him and stuff like >> even though you were coming to visit, you just said something key. You said visit. You're the parent. they should be visiting, >> not the other way around. They've raised you and your sister. It's not their responsibility to raise your child. So, since they have chosen to take on that responsibility, >> the final order lands hard. Child support, health insurance reimbursement, and back pay for months of care already provided by the grandparents. Then comes perhaps the most revealing statement of the entire hearing when the mother suggests she may stop coming around if she has to pay. The judge immediately catches the wording. She says she visits the child, but parents aren't supposed to be visitors in their children's lives. That distinction speaks volumes.
What was your reaction to that exchange?
>> You're going to be responsible for the financial side. Is there anything further?
>> No, ma'am. Okay. Is there anything further, Mr. and Mrs. Harold? I mean, I'm sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Paul. I called you by your first name, Mr. Paul.
>> That's okay. That's okay. Anything else, baby?
>> No, I think that's >> Okay. Excuse me, ma'am.
>> Yes. Sorry. Excuse when you get down.
>> Yes, ma'am. Was there something else you needed to let me know?
>> Okay. I heard you mumble a little bit. I didn't know if you had something else to say.
>> I had something in my throat.
>> Oh, okay.
>> I bet you did.
>> Mrs. Paul. Mr. Paul. That's inappropriate. M.
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
We just need to make sure we need to um set up um visit visitation schedule cuz she does need to take care of them. Yes, she does >> when we travel. Well, here's the deal.
Legally, you can't force her to do that.
Okay. The only thing you all can do is, you know, make sure you maintain your custody, right? And she can see the baby. But that's going to depend on what she wants to do. If she doesn't want to visit the child, I can't make her do that, but I can make her pay.
>> Well, we'll rather take something for instead of nothing.
>> Okay. Well, if there's nothing further, you all are dismissed.
>> Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> By the end of this case, the grandparents received financial relief, but not necessarily the outcome they truly wanted. The judge could order child support, reimbursements, and back pay, but she couldn't force a parent to build a relationship with her child.
That's the heartbreaking reality at the center of this hearing. One family walked away with legal answers, yet emotional questions remain. If this case stunned you, too, drop your take in the comments, hit like, and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> Okay, Mr. Sanchez, you brought this case before the court. What's going on?
>> Okay, your honor. Um, I'm want to sue her for child support because, you know, my kids are always with me and she's always at work. uh you know she's always working for the hospital you know yeah we said back then that we could do this uh together as one I've went so much as far as uh switching swapping complete schedules I started doing overnight shift now uh just so I can be there for my kids and everything and she was supposed to be working for mornings which she was but she volunteered for more hours and and even when she's not at work she's just never home uh I don't know where she is. She doesn't call us.
She doesn't call our kids. Uh my kids are always wondering where she's at. And uh you know, I myself, sure, she can do what she she she wants as long as she lets me know where she is for her own safety. But my kids always wonder where she's at. They always for days at a time. She's never home. And we we broke it off several weeks ago. And only with my income alone, we I can't really just do it with just uh me and my kids.
>> All right, guys. This one is going to leave a lot of people shaking their heads. A father walks into court asking for help supporting two children he's already raising on his own, including a child with autism. But what unfolds is far more than a child support dispute.
As the testimony starts coming out, the judge uncovers allegations of neglect, disappearing for days at a time, and a parent who seems to view responsibility very differently. The question is, how much patience does a court have when a child's needs are being ignored?
uh especially that one has autism, I've always got to take her to the doctor and whatnot. And she and for these past three weeks, I have not seen or heard uh from her uh even as so much as trying to help out with the kids or anything like that. Uh so I just I can't get I'm surprised she's even here at court today.
>> Okay. When you say kids, how many?
>> I have two.
>> Two. All right. You mean we like you?
>> No, I have two.
>> Ma'am, I'm addressing him. This is where the case immediately becomes more serious. The father isn't simply saying money is tight. He's describing the reality of being the sole caregiver while trying to maintain full-time employment. Courts often focus on the best interests of the children. And when one child has special medical needs, the expectations placed on both parents become even greater. What would you do if you suddenly had to carry the entire burden alone?
>> So, he answered appropriately and you'll have your opportunity to speak. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. So, you said you changed your job to now you work overnight.
>> Yes.
>> What is it that you do?
>> I drive an 18-wheeler. I drive uh locally. I deliver hospital supplies.
>> Okay. So, I'm assuming that's how you all met >> uh beforehand, but we had the same interest in the medical field.
>> Okay. All right. And how long has this how long has it been since you all stopped living together?
>> Uh it's been I want to say a month and a week already.
>> Okay. Is there anything else you want me to know before I move over to her?
>> Um, she just for as long as I can remember, about two years now, she's just never been wanting to come home really.
And honestly, I've I've caught her having some painkillers that I would I would only assume she's taken from the hospital she works at.
>> Now, the courtroom takes a dramatic turn. The father's allegations aren't just about absence anymore. He's suggesting possible substance abuse and claiming the children themselves have found concerning items around the home.
Whether those claims can be proven or not, notice how quickly the judge's attention shifts. When potential safety issues involving children enter the conversation, every statement suddenly carries much more weight.
>> No, I believe it is important to him. I don't think that's what he's saying.
He's saying that you're not contributing anything.
>> I mean, I am though. like I feed them or sometimes and I feed them. You'd agree with me that that's your responsibility, right?
>> She she brings them fast food and leaves again.
>> Okay. But it's food.
>> But you don't sit there and spend quality time with your kids. You say, "Here, here's food and leave."
>> I mean, the tablet works just fine. They can just eat and watch the tablet. Like, why is that a problem?
>> Because >> So, you want to raise a child off of a tablet? You you think this >> I mean they have educational stuff. I don't see what's wrong with it. Like I need to go to sleep at some point in time.
>> Listen carefully to this exchange because it reveals two completely different views of parenting. The mother argues that working long hours should excuse her absence. The judge, however, isn't questioning the importance of work. She's questioning the lack of involvement. Providing food is one thing. Being emotionally present is another. Do you think a parent can fulfill their role through financial support alone? or does parenting require much more?
>> Interesting.
>> Me personally, myself, I sit there with my kids and I open a book with them and I help them with their homework. I feed them. Uh I'm not much of a good cook, but I do what I can to put food on the table and spend time with them. I lose it doesn't matter if I lose sleep over it. I mean, that's why I went to overnight cuz I want to spend time with my kids.
>> I went to over shift to see more time.
>> He's a dad >> as you should. You're a mom. the audacity.
>> I mean, but I'm have more important >> I mean I mean how many times are you going to say that? I mean you have the audacity to say that he's a dad and he should do these things.
But you're the mom and not doing these things. He changed his shift. Why can't you? Because I've actually heard a couple times to where she says, "I gave birth to him. It's your job to take care of him."
>> You believe that? Yes. The father's testimony is quietly becoming one of the strongest parts of his case. He explains how he changed his entire work schedule just to be available for his children.
Judges often look for actions, not promises. While one parent is describing sacrifices made for the family, the other appears focused on explaining why those sacrifices shouldn't be expected.
That contrast is becoming impossible for the courtroom to ignore.
>> Interesting. Wow. No, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
you are going to financially support these children and I'm going to make sure of it today and you may want to look into trying to do a shift change yourself so you can spend some time with the kids. I mean obviously I can't court order you or force you to spend time with them. But you should want to spend time with the kids and I mean considering that one of them has autism, you should want to spend more time with your kids. I mean, I get it, but it's too much work having a kid with autism.
That's why I just leave it to him because he's better suited for that, >> right? Yeah. No, I'm not about to do this game with you. Since you left a month and a week ago, have you given him any money for the children?
>> This may be the most shocking moment so far. The judge makes it clear that parenting responsibilities don't belong exclusively to one parent. Then comes a revelation that one child has autism, followed by the mother's statement that it's simply too much work. You can almost feel the mood in the courtroom change. Did this moment completely change your view of the case?
>> I don't need an explanation either. It's a yes or no.
>> No. Okay. Thank you. All right.
>> She's actually asked for money instead of giving.
>> And then you have the nerve to ask for money and the kids are with him. I mean, he has an obligation to give me support.
You have a You know what? I'm not about to play with you. You came here to waste my time because you have the same obligation to your kids. He should not be paying you anything if the kids are with him majority of the time. If they're living with him, if he is the primary parent, he is tasked with the daily duties of caring for these kids.
He shouldn't pay you anything, ma'am.
And it is ridiculous that you believe that he should. Things get even worse for the mother's position. Not only has she reportedly failed to provide support, but she's apparently been asking the primary caregiver for money.
Family courts typically follow the child, meaning financial obligations often fall on the parent, spending less time caring for the children. The judge's frustration is becoming obvious because the legal reality and the mother's expectations are moving in opposite directions >> to Medicaid. Just FYI, unless you want to put them on private health insurance, which I don't see why you would have a problem with you're a nurse, you have access to private health insurance, right?
>> Yes.
>> So, why did you just get an individual plan when you have a family? That was a question.
>> Cuz it's his job to take care of them and I shouldn't have to spend.
>> You know what? Don't say that again about what his responsibilities are and what his job is because you're a mom.
Period. I mean, but countless times I've told her, "Yes, it is my job to take care of of our children." And you're doing that and and I'm doing well beyond >> She's not disputing that you're doing that.
>> Yes. And I feel like >> But you're not doing your part.
>> I feel like I'm always not doing enough for my kids. Force me to have the kids.
Like, I don't know why you're doing that.
>> Because >> you don't want to have your kids.
>> Notice how the judge keeps returning to the same issue, responsibility. The discussion about health insurance reveals something important. The court isn't just calculating dollars. It's evaluating choices. When a parent has access to resources that could benefit their children, but chooses not to use them. Judges tend to take notice.
Parenting isn't measured only by what you provide. It's measured by what you prioritize.
>> I mean, like when I was pregnant, I told him I didn't want them cuz I wanted to go party. And like he was just like, "No, we got this. We got this." And like how is it my fault? He wanted them. I didn't want them. So, >> but you careful.
>> No. First, we we've talked about having kids and we've wanted kids, but she got pregnant. Once she got pregnant and she knew she couldn't do what she needed anymore or really what she wanted anymore, >> uh then it was just it was, oh, this baby's really an inconvenience to to our lives.
>> Child support payment is about to be is about to be an inconvenience to you as well because you're going to pay child support. Whether you wanted them or not is beside the point. You had them. They are here. They are your responsibility.
And then comes a statement that may define the entire case. The mother admits she didn't really want the children and viewed them as an obstacle to the lifestyle she preferred. Legally, that changes nothing. Morally, however, it's a moment many viewers won't forget.
Once children are here, the law doesn't allow parents to opt out simply because parenthood became harder than expected.
>> Get health insurance through your employer that's cheaper than that for the children. You don't want to look into it?
>> Not really.
>> We work for the same company. Yes, she does.
>> Oh, okay. So, this is what we'll do. You just go ahead and pay that and you can roll your eyes all you want to. I can roll my eyes, too.
>> We're now entering the calculation phase, and this is where courtroom emotion meets legal reality. The judge begins breaking down income, insurance obligations, and reimbursement requirements. Family courts generally rely on formulas rather than feelings.
No matter how strongly someone argues, numbers often tell the final story. The question now is whether the mother understands just how significant this financial ruling is about to become.
>> We're just going to have you reimburse Medicaid that full $450.
So that brings your monthly child support obligation for two children to $1,025 plus the $450 reimbursement to Medicaid for $1,475.
Now it looks like dad also requested for you to pay back pay for that month in a week that you left and haven't given the children anything. I'm going to grant his request. So you have aarages in the amount of $1,475.
That's to be paid at $25 a month. So your monthly child support obligation including the back pay is $1,500. The final amount lands like a hammer.
Between child support, Medicaid reimbursement, and back pay, the monthly obligation climbs to $1,500.
What's remarkable is that the mother still seems focused on how the ruling will affect her social life rather than how it might help her children. At this point, the judge's message couldn't be clearer. Children come before convenience every single time.
>> You have any questions about anything I just said? I mean, I just feel like it should be less. What am I going to be left with to party with? like what am I going to do?
>> Um I don't know. Maybe pick up some extra shifts or work a part-time job or take care of, >> you know, if if she doesn't want to take care of her kids. I really don't care at this point. I just want to make sure he gets some financial assistance.
>> I mean, but he makes enough money. And I mean, you make enough money, too. So, again, do you have any questions about anything I just said?
>> No.
>> Okay. You have any questions? What started as a routine child support hearing turned into a powerful lesson about accountability. The father demonstrated sacrifice, consistency, and commitment, while the mother's own statements repeatedly undermined her position. In the end, the court focused on one thing above all else, the welfare of the children. If this case stunned you, too, drop your take in the comments. Do you agree with the judge's ruling? Hit like, subscribe, and stay tuned for more courtroom drama and real life legal showdowns. All rise for support for judge vunder. Judge, this is case number JVB20005.
Campost case.
>> Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> You all may be seated. Okay. Is it Miss or Mrs. Compost? Mrs. Miss. Okay. You brought this case before the court.
What's going on?
>> All right, guys. This one's going to hit hard. A grandmother walks into court not for herself, but for the grandson she's been raising while her own son allegedly looks the other way. What starts as a child support dispute quickly turns into a story about family responsibility and a secret that could change everything.
The question is, how much does a parent really owe when someone else is doing the parenting?
>> It was just me and my husband. Um, so Julian had his grandpa, he had me, and everything was fine. Well, last year grandpa passed away.
>> I'm sorry about that.
>> Thank you. And things have gotten tougher because of that. So to the point where uh I came out of retirement, >> as the grandmother describes losing her husband and returning to work in retirement, the emotional weight of this case becomes impossible to ignore. She's not asking for luxury. She's asking for help raising a child who was left in her care. Imagine spending your retirement driving for extra income just to cover a grandchild's basic needs. Would you step up the same way she did? Julian just he's just like some man that comes over because he comes over so rarely. Uh what really ticked me off was a little bit back ago he went and bought Julian some clothes. He also bought himself some clothes. But what my grandson had told me was that if he could have some shoes and I said what do you mean he got you some new shoes? No.
He said we went to the mall. We got his clothes, his shoes, and then he stopped at Walmart on the way home and got Julian's stuff, I guess, cuz it's cheaper. I get it. I I mean, poor Julian. He's getting Walmart from me, he's getting Walmart from him.
>> But Julian was with him.
>> He was literally with him and he took him and I thought they were going to, you know, maybe things had changed with him, whatever.
>> If I could please explain your honor.
>> You can.
>> Okay.
>> This isn't really about shoes. It's about priorities. The grandson noticed that dad bought himself premium items while his own purchases came as an afterthought. Kids pay attention to more than adults realize. Moments like this can shape how a child views a parent for years. Do you think the grandmother is overreacting or did this reveal something much bigger about dad's mindset?
>> The the mother has been paying the state child support all these years.
>> Okay. Wait, so she's been paying child support to him apparently. So, I don't I haven't seen one dime.
>> All right. And so, Julian is under Medicaid.
>> I couldn't get him under Medicaid because you couldn't get him.
>> I couldn't. That's how I found out about the child support. When I asked him about it on that on the visit that he made to buy the clothes, he said that no, it it's he doesn't get any. He doesn't know where it's going to this and that. But I know I know Juan there's that money. He knows what I'm talking about. You know, he knows he's getting it. But >> and here comes the first major twist.
The grandmother discovers that child support has been flowing for years, but not to the person actually raising the child. Suddenly, this case isn't just about financial hardship. It's about where the money went and why the caregiver was left completely in the dark. If you found out support payments existed all along, how would you react?
>> Okay, >> Mr. Compost. Okay. So, is it indeed a fact that you have been receiving child support from the mother of your son?
Yes. Yes. Yes, I have.
>> Best.
>> And you didn't tell your mom?
>> No, I I I didn't feel the need to.
>> Okay. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Is it true that your son, your six-year-old, has been living with your mom for 3 years?
>> The son immediately confirms he's been receiving child support. That admission changes the atmosphere in the courtroom.
What looked like confusion now starts looking like concealment. The judge's attention sharpens and you can almost feel the case shifting direction. The real issue is no longer whether money exists. It's whether it's being used for the child who needs it.
>> Means that you need to give her something, right?
>> And and I do pay the healthcare um the the 150. I do pay that.
>> Wait a minute. So that's that's the missing missing link here. So you pay health insurance for your son already?
>> Yes, I pay the 150.
>> Why didn't you tell your mother that?
Why haven't you given her a health insurance card? Why haven't you given her anything? That's not fair.
>> It it it's not. But I paid for it. I thought that was, you know, all I needed to do from my side. I I didn't realize I needed to tell my mom everything.
>> Well, it's not serving Julian. What?
Wait a minute, Mr. Compost. Who takes him to the doctor?
>> Well, I haven't recently. I, you know, it's fair to say that your mom probably does it, right?
>> Yes.
So wouldn't it logically follow that she needs a insurance card or the information?
>> Yes. And it's just that I >> So you're letting >> Now another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Dad has been paying for health insurance, but the grandmother, the person taking the child to doctors, never received the information she needed to use it. Technically, paying a bill isn't enough if the benefit never reaches the child. Responsibility isn't just about writing checks. It's about making sure the child is actually cared for.
>> Yes.
>> So, your mom is not only taking care of your son's medical needs, she's taking care of his daily needs. And you don't want to help her?
>> Uh, I I do want to help her. And I thought she had all the help she needed.
When when papa passed away, he he left quite a bit of money for her. And I thought, you know, it was >> You just said key words. He left a quite a bit of money for her. Yes.
>> Not for your son, not for you. Yes. And and she keeps talking about going to Uber and such, but that's a pretty nice ring on her finger she has there. Don't know how many tips.
>> Got me years ago. This is not something I bought in the last 3 years.
>> Um because she says she does Uber and such. I mean, if it's really that low, wouldn't you?
>> Oh my god, Mr. Compost. No.
>> Okay.
>> I obviously came here to waste my time.
What kind of club promoter are you?
>> This exchange may be the emotional turning point of the entire case. The grandmother is handling medical care, housing, food, and daily parenting, while the father points to inheritance, money, and personal possessions. The judge clearly isn't impressed. There's a growing difference between what's legally acceptable and what feels morally right. Did the father just lose the court's sympathy here?
>> And since he lives alone in this big house, I told him we were going to have to move to a a a one-bedroom apartment.
Uh or we could come stay with him. I have my private room. Julian have his private room and he would have his private room.
>> Yeah. So, what's what's the deal with that? You're okay with your mother in this one bedroom. Why can't she stay in the big house?
>> Well, >> inconvenience. He said it would be very inconvenient. How big is this house? How many bedrooms?
>> Maybe 800 ft most. Uh two bedroomedroom, you know, half half closet.
>> The housing issue exposes an even deeper family fracture. The grandmother offered to move into the large home with her grandson after becoming a widow, but the son rejected the idea as inconvenient.
Think about that for a moment. A child is sleeping on a sofa while a larger home sits elsewhere. Legal cases often reveal facts, but they also reveal values.
>> Okay. All right. Mr. Compost, how much money do you make a year?
>> Uh, 48,000.
>> Really?
>> Yes. You make $48,000 a year and you live in this big house in Plano.
>> Well, then that's where all the money >> club promoting.
>> That's where all the money goes is to the house to make sure it's, you know, I have so many members.
>> That's the child support. They didn't give me the amount because I'm not on the case, right? But who knows how much she's paying.
>> How much do you receive in child support? Because if she makes that kind of money, >> just just a grand. Just a grand. And that's in that win. You know how much?
>> Everybody does not receive just a grand.
>> Well, that that's why I paid for the 150 that >> you came here to waste my time. What is it? What is the amount? So, you pay yourself $48,000. You pay yourself that, right?
>> Uh, no. It's it's from from, you know, from jobs that I I try and >> How much is your rent, Mr. Compost? Or or do you pay a mortgage?
>> Whenever financial numbers start coming out, judges pay close attention. The father's income, expenses, housing situation, and child support payments are all being examined, but his answers seem increasingly inconsistent, and the judge notices. In court, credibility can be just as important as evidence. Once a judge begins questioning your honesty, the entire case can start unraveling.
>> I was not born yesterday.
>> Okay.
>> All right. So, let me tell you what we're going to do. We are going to have the child support that you received that $1,000.
>> Y if there's any way we can >> Yeah. Hold on. Hold on. I'm not finished. And I know you want to hear this.
>> That's just mom's portion.
>> You're going to pay too.
>> So mom is going to be getting what?
About Let's see. You said 40. Now I'mma take your word for it. I'm going to take your word for it at that $48,000. All right. And you said $150 in health insurance.
>> Yes.
>> Here it is. The moment the grandmother has been waiting for. The judge decides that the existing child support money should be redirected to the person actually raising the child. This is a powerful legal principle. Support follows the child, not simply the parent who receives it. The courtroom dynamic changes instantly and dad suddenly realizes this hearing is costing him far more than expect. brings your child support to $656 and that's giving you credit for the health insurance. So, you have to continue paying that health insurance of $150.
Child support to grandma is going to be $656 as well as the reallocation of the $1,000 that you receive from mom going to grandmother. So, grandmother's amount in child support monthly is $1,656, which $656 belongs to you. You understand that?
>> Yes.
>> The final calculation lands with serious impact. Not only is the father losing access to the support money he was receiving, but he's now ordered to pay additional child support directly to the grandmother. The judge has effectively recognized who the primary caregiver really is. Cases like this remind everyone that courts focus on the child's best interests above everything else.
>> And I knew that his mor his mortgage was not $500 cuz I thought, well then I should move to Plano to the big houses cuz apparently they're giving them away over there. But with that money that you're saying that we're eligible for, we wouldn't have had to sell the home that me and your dad lived our whole lives in that we raised you in. Had you just done that, I could still be in that home that I chered so much. And you knew you knew that I love that home.
>> Well, if you manage your money right, then maybe you still would have >> Mr. Compost. Shame on you.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Shame on you.
>> I'm sorry, your honor. And I and I and I need this for my promoting this this >> and I need you to do better. How about that? That's what I need you to do. I need you to do right by your mother. I'm not here to counsel you or anything like that. But to hear that she had to sell the family home, that's kind of heartbreaking. That is That is You can only imagine the memories that are gone, right?
>> Yes, your honor.
>> So, I need you to do better. And until then, I need you to keep working so your mom can get this $656. Okay.
>> What began as a grandmother asking for help ended with a judge uncovering hidden child support and used insurance benefits and a parent who wasn't carrying his share of the burden. In the end, the court made sure the money followed the child and the caregiver doing the real work. But what do you think? Was the judge fair or should the father have faced even tougher consequences? If this case stunned you too, drop your take in the comments, hit like and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> Yes, ma'am. You brought this case before the court. What's going on, >> judge? Um, I have a really great daughter. However, we have a kind of a bad situation.
Um, my daughter seems to be so busy sometimes that I think she knows she's a mom, but she kind of has other responsibilities that she's kind of putting in the forefront of it. The last two years, it's kind of gotten difficult for me. We have one baby girl. Her name is London and uh she's almost two and my daughter is trying to go to college, work.
>> All right, guys. This one's going to hit hard. A grandmother walks into court asking for financial help. not from a stranger, not from an exartner, but from her own daughter. What starts as a family disagreement quickly turns into a debate about responsibility, sacrifice, and who's really raising a little girl caught in the middle. By the end of this case, the judge delivers a ruling that neither side can ignore. Would you side with the struggling student mom or the exhausted grandmother?
>> Be a mom and, you know, everything else that she wants to be. And so it's just gotten to a point where it's kind of ridiculous because I need some assistance financially and I'm not unfortunately I'm not getting it.
>> All right. And do you pay health insurance for the child?
>> Um she is on Medicaid right now cuz we qualify for Medicaid.
>> All right.
Okay. Anything else you want me to know before I move over to her?
>> Right away you can hear the grandmother's frustration. She isn't claiming her daughter is a bad mother.
She's arguing that she's carrying too much of the parenting burden herself.
That's an important distinction. In family court, judges often look beyond intentions and focus on reality. Who is actually providing daily care? Who is paying the bills? Those answers can completely change how a case unfolds.
>> Is that a paid position?
>> Yes. Yes, it is.
>> How much are you paid?
>> Well, I just got a promotion. Um, that's good.
>> 50,000.
>> Okay. I just feel like I work, you know, all day. I go to school at nights. I don't come home.
>> Congratulations. We all work all day.
>> Yeah. I don't go I don't get home until like midnight. And I mean, my mother, you know, the grandmother of my child has to >> Well, because I'm not the one that got pregnant on prom night. You wouldn't be having this problem. Okay.
>> That wasn't my decision.
>> Okay. But you're my mother, right? So, you always said you wanted a grandchild, didn't you?
>> I had one child. Yes, I wanted a grandchild, but it would have been nice if you would have got married first and had someone to share the responsibility with, not me.
>> This is where emotions start boiling over. The daughter points to her demanding schedule, college education, and career goals. But the grandmother fires back with a painful reminder.
Those choices don't erase parental responsibilities. It's a clash between long-term ambition and immediate obligations. And here's the big question. Should building a better future excuse falling short in the present? I agree with your mom. This is your child. And you said something very key while you were talking. You said grandmother, >> right?
>> You're her child. She raised you. It is not her responsibility to raise your child, >> right?
>> It is your responsibility.
>> I just I just feel like I don't really have to owe her anything. You don't feel like you should pay your mother. If your do if your your daughter were going to daycare, you would be paying the daycare, right?
>> Yes or no?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Do you feel like they should be paid?
>> Yes.
>> They're taking care of your child, looking after your child, taking >> Notice how quickly the judge zeros in on a key legal principle. Grandparents may help, but they aren't automatically responsible for raising grandchildren.
The judge is drawing a clear line between support and obligation. It's a moment that changes the entire direction of the hearing because now the focus isn't on family favors. It's on parental duty.
>> Changing diapers, feedings, they should be paid, right?
>> Right.
>> Your mother is doing everything I just named. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> So, it logically follows that she should be paid too, right?
>> Well, she uses her money for the school loans, and I can appreciate that she doesn't want to have school debt, >> right? But now that she's making more money, she's going to have to give me a little bit of that. They live with me. I the house is paid. We don't have that that bill.
>> So she I know she wants to be responsible and not have any debt, but you know, mommy doesn't need to be have no debt and worried.
>> The daycare comparison is devastatingly effective. The judge asks a simple question. If a daycare provider deserves payment for caring for the child, why wouldn't a grandmother doing the same work deserve compensation, too?
Sometimes the strongest legal arguments aren't complicated. They're the ones that expose a contradiction nobody can easily explain away >> about diapers and all that too. And she does try to help, but it's just not enough. And now that she's got a promotion, I feel like she needs to take a little bit more responsibility. I've done everything I can.
>> You know that I'm a double major. Right.
>> I know that, sweetheart. But like I said, >> London is important, too.
>> So >> I know she is. That's why I leave her with you.
>> Mhm. Well, just like I did a good job with raising you.
>> You leave her with you and you leave your child with your mother and do not believe that your mother should receive some sort of financial assistance.
>> I feel like I give something back by being in school.
>> The daughter believes her education is an investment that will eventually benefit everyone, including her child.
And she's not wrong about the value of education. But family courts often deal with today's needs, not tomorrow's promises. The judge seems unconvinced that future success can substitute for present financial support. Did this moment change how you see the case?
>> You know, once I do get that that education, >> what are you giving back by being in school?
>> I'm giving her >> What are your plans after school?
>> Well, I'm majoring also in psychology.
So, I planned on opening my own clinic, >> doing a clinical psychologist, and then from there I could, you know, take care of my own daughter by then. Just right now?
>> Yeah. Move out.
>> And your mom still takes care of the baby?
>> No, I could take care of the baby by then. I just need a little bit of help.
>> You can take care of the baby by yourself now.
>> Thank you, Judge. I appreciate that.
>> So, I'm still not hearing what your issue is.
>> My issue is just because she's your mom, you don't >> listen carefully to the daughter's argument. She sees college as her contribution to the family's future. The judge, however, is looking for a contribution that's tangible right now.
That's a common courtroom tension. Good intentions versus measurable responsibility. One side is talking about potential while the other is talking about diapers, food, and childare today.
>> Believe you need to pay her something.
>> I That's what I thought.
>> Because if you think about it, you really don't live there. you just going to sleep.
Mom is taking care of the baby. You'd agree with me, right? If you're coming in at midnight, >> the baby is with your mom all day, you're literally coming to the house, not seeing the baby because if it's at midnight, the baby's asleep, I'm assuming, >> and you're going right back out to school and work.
>> I tuck her in.
>> She's already tucked in. So, you just pull the covers over a little higher.
That's what you do. time she wakes her up judging and just to play.
>> You wake up the baby at midnight >> just so I can give her a kiss, you know, read her little story so that way there's some sort of bonding between us since I do work, you know, all night long. And >> this exchange may be the turning point of the entire hearing. When the judge points out that the mother is barely home and spends most of her time working or studying, the practical reality becomes impossible to ignore. Family court often focuses less on titles and more on actions. Who is physically there? Who is doing the parenting? Those facts carry enormous weight.
>> And the baby is with your mom. And I'm assuming this happens on the weekends, too.
>> No, on the weekends she does stay home and you know, she does help. And like I said, she doesn't like that. She's like not like girl, that girl that goes clubbing and stuff. She does take that responsibility serious. It's just her job and school. And now she's going to work full-time. Now she's going to be working more with the promotion, >> right? Cuz I got that promotion. You know, that kind of leaves us with a little extra money and no time because we hardly had any time now. I can't even imagine what it's going to be like now that she's going full time.
>> Interestingly, the grandmother isn't attacking her daughter's character. She openly admits her daughter isn't out partying or avoiding responsibility.
That's what makes this case so compelling. Both women appear to be trying their best, yet they're still in conflict. Sometimes courtroom drama isn't about villains and heroes. It's about two people overwhelmed by difficult circumstances.
>> Okay, this is what we're going to do.
We're going to start your child support so you can at least give mom some sort of assistance. Now, at the time that you move out of the house and you have the child on your own, 100%. Mom is not babysitting. Mom is not well, not even babysitting. The child is living with your mom.
>> Okay? If the child is no longer living with your mom, your daughter is with you 100% of the time, then you can come back and see me to stop child support at that time. But until that happens, mom is going to receive some sort of financial.
>> And there it is. The ruling everyone saw coming, but maybe not at this level. The judge formally establishes child support. The reasoning is simple. If the grandmother is effectively housing and caring for the child most of the time, she deserves financial assistance. The legal system is stepping in to match financial responsibility with actual caregiving.
>> Is a reimbursement to Medicaid. Now you are working full-time.
>> You have access to health insurance now.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> Do you know how much it'll cost?
>> Um I don't know.
>> Okay. This is what we're going to do.
Because Medicaid reimbursement is about $375.
That's based on 9% of your gross.
>> Okay. I'm pretty sure your health insurance is cheaper than that for your daughter only. So, what I'll do is order you to be responsible for that health insurance and give you a credit of $100 towards the health insurance. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> The judge doesn't stop at child support.
She also tackles health insurance and Medicaid reimbursement, showing how family court decisions often involve much more than a single monthly payment.
Every detail matters because the goal is ensuring the child's needs are covered.
This is where legal reasoning replaces emotion and the numbers start telling the story.
>> So that'll make your monthly child support obligation $83 to your mother.
>> Sorry, baby. You got to learn.
>> Okay.
>> Any questions?
>> No.
>> No. No questions.
>> Thank you, Joe. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. If there's nothing further, you all are dismissed.
>> Thank you. What began as a dispute between mother and daughter ended with a powerful lesson about accountability.
The judge acknowledged the daughter's hard work and ambition, but made it clear that parenthood comes first. In the end, the grandmother received financial support for the caregiving role she'd already been filling. If this case stunned you, too, drop your take in the comments, hit like, and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> Well, she left when our son was 11 months old. He's >> 11 months. 11 months. Yes. And uh she chose to pursue her career.
>> Wait a minute. I I got hung up. You said 11 months and he's 10 years old now.
>> 10 years old now. She chose her career over being a parent. Although she wanted to be a parent and left me with the child. Uh it's been hard. I do what I can do. I take care of our son. She's still chasing her dreams. Nothing wrong with that. But she did decide to have a child. And you know, I just want to know what happened. You know, some kind of >> All right, guys. This one is going to hit hard. A father walks into court claiming he spent nearly a decade raising his son alone while the child's mother chased her career and stayed largely absent. Now, he's asking a question that flips the usual courtroom narrative on its head. If a parent walks away from responsibility, shouldn't there be consequences? But as this hearing unfolds, you'll see it's about much more than money. It's about accountability, sacrifice, and a child caught in the middle.
>> Compensation. If she's chasing her dreams and making all the money she wants to make, you know, maybe she can just throw some money our way and uh that'll that'll be fine. You know, >> that would be fine. And I agree with that. Ma'am, >> is there a reason that you have not paid this man child support? He's been having your son for 10 years.
>> Did throw He said throw some money there away. What that mean? This is the moment the case shifts from an emotional complaint to a legal dispute. The father isn't just asking why she left. He's asking for financial support after years of carrying the burden alone. Child support isn't a reward or punishment.
It's meant to ensure a child's needs are met. The real question is whether the mother has been meeting her obligations all these years. What would you do if you had to raise a child alone for a decade?
>> Yeah, that's all he looks for is money.
>> Okay. It takes more than air to raise a child. Ma'am, >> you have to pay something. What What else do you want him to receive to to be able to raise this child?
>> I'm listening.
>> And our child has dreams.
>> He needs to get a job and stop trying to depend on me.
>> No, what you need to do is listen to what I'm saying and answer my question and not worry about what he has going on. Everything is about you right now, >> is it?
>> Yeah, it is. Notice how quickly the judge redirects the conversation. The courtroom isn't interested in excuses or personal attacks. The focus is the child. When the judge says, "Everything is about you right now," she's exposing a critical problem. One parent is discussing the child's needs while the other seems focused on her own circumstances. That contrast often speaks volumes.
>> Turned in. You've made money and you have not given anything to him for your child. It's absurd. I've been throwing money his way and I don't know what he been doing with it cuz I make over 85,000 a year.
>> Excuse me.
>> Over 85,000 a year.
>> You make over $85,000.
She hasn't given you any money, sir?
>> Not too much. And really the thing is >> this dude is lying.
Excuse me. I I can't listen to both of y'all at the same time. I have two ears, but I only can listen to one person.
>> Now, we hear the mother's defense. She claims she's been sending money. That's a serious assertion because if true, it could dramatically change the outcome.
But in court, statements alone aren't enough. Documentation matters, receipts matter, records matter, family court often comes down to what can be proven, not just what can be said. And right now, the judge appears unconvinced by what she's hearing.
>> Is well, she's all free pursuing her career. I have to watch the child.
>> Wait a minute. What kind What kind of ma'am?
>> Well, it's hard to find a job and take care of a kid. What kind of career does she have?
>> She's a esthetician.
>> Okay.
>> Uh eyelashes, care of people's eyelashes. She makes pretty good money at it. Actually, she's good at at her job for it, too.
>> However, um >> ma'am, >> diapers and >> Excuse me, sir. All this extra and this attitude. I'm the only person that can have an attitude in here. Okay.
>> Yes, it's right. So, I'm going to need you to >> The father's explanation reveals another hidden layer of this story. While the mother built a successful career, he became the primary caregiver. Society often expects mothers to fill that role.
But here, the responsibilities were reversed. Yet, the challenges remain the same. Balancing income, education, child care, and emotional support. It's a reminder that parenting struggles don't belong to one gender. They belong to whoever shows up every day.
>> I would like to do it as best as I can on my own. However, I can't go back to school and take care of our son and have a job and run a business is is very hard. And uh >> I imagine so.
>> It is.
>> I imagine. So, what what type of expenses does your son have him?
>> He has normal childhood expenses. Uh food. Um he likes >> Is he involved in extracurricular activities?
>> Yes, he likes to read. He likes games.
Uh I like to keep him with um electronics and things to you know spark his interest. Uh >> what type of extracurricular activities?
>> He likes go-karts, motorcycles. He likes uh race cars, train sets, uh video games.
>> Listen carefully as the father describes his son's interests and activities. To some viewers, these might sound like ordinary childhood hobbies, but legally this testimony is important. He's demonstrating ongoing expenses and showing the court that he's actively involved in the child's development.
These details help paint a picture of daily parenting responsibilities that extend far beyond simply providing food and shelter.
>> He likes going out to the park, going to the lake, and you know, all that.
>> Do you hear all of that? All of that costs money.
>> It sure does. And like he said, I've been throwing money that way >> every now and then. It hasn't been Has it been consistent?
>> It's not very consistent.
>> And it clearly cannot be consistent.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have a reason to be here. It >> You asked him that question.
>> Ma'am, you know what? He's taking care of the child >> doing what though?
>> The person he the child lives with him.
>> Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Right. So whether he works or not, >> it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that he is raising you all's child and you're not doing anything consistently. So we're going to make that change.
>> According to him, though, right?
>> I I want to see you do that same.
>> The judge's patience is starting to wear thin. Every time the mother insists she's been helping, the court circles back to the same issue. Consistency.
Family courts don't just look at occasional contributions. They look for reliable support. Children can't pause their needs between payments. The judge is sending a clear message. Parenting obligations aren't optional when it's convenient.
>> After I finish >> with these calculations. Okay. So, who carries health insurance? Do you carry health insurance for the child?
>> Ask him.
>> Do you carry health insurance for >> all the information, >> ma'am? Well, see, that's that's the problem. I have a hard time communicating with her. Communication.
>> I'm having a hard time communicating with her. So, I can't even imagine what you have to deal with and talking to her about the child.
>> And he just wants to know where his mother is and why she doesn't want to be part of our lives and why she doesn't want to come around. Why she wants to be involved in any of his after school activities.
>> That is a legitimate concern. That is a legitimate concern.
>> Where his mother is.
>> Who who pays health insurance for the child?
>> Well, the health insurance is >> This may be one of the most emotional moments of the entire hearing. The father says his son simply wants to know where his mother is and why she isn't around. Suddenly, the case becomes bigger than financial calculations.
Money can cover expenses, but it can't replace presents. For many viewers, this is the moment that transforms the dispute from a legal battle into a heartbreaking family story >> hard right now. Um, >> so he doesn't have any health insurance coverage right now.
>> He has.
>> So, we're going to fix that right now.
So, according to your own testimony and your tax returns and your 1099s, it does equate to about $85,000 a year. So, what we're going to do is order you to pay child support. Based on your gross, it comes out to $7,83.33.
And right now, the child isn't covered on any sort of health insurance coverage. So, you're also going to be responsible for obtaining health insurance for the child. Okay. And I'm going to >> Here comes the legal reckoning. After reviewing income records and testimony, the judge begins calculating support.
This is where facts replace emotions.
The mother's earnings become the foundation for determining what she owes. The court also addresses health insurance, recognizing that medical coverage is a fundamental part of supporting a child. These rulings aren't about revenge. They're about responsibility. So, giving you credit for your other children, your child support obligation comes out to $698.78.
And I'm also going to order you pay back support to this man. He requested in his paperwork that you pay back support to him. It's known as retroactive child support. In Texas, it can go back the last four years. So, in calculating what your monthly child support obligation should be for the past four years, child support um back pay is $33,5414144.
>> And now the biggest shock of the case, retroactive child support. The judge explains that under Texas law, support can be ordered for previous years.
Suddenly, the consequences of years without consistent payments become very real. The total climbs into tens of thousands of dollars. This ruling highlights an important lesson. Avoiding obligations today can create much larger obligations tomorrow.
>> Repay that monthly at $1,000. So, your total monthly obligation is $1,698.78 for child support obligation. Any questions about that?
>> As long as he get a job and stop living off of me.
>> You know what, ma'am? He he can't be living off of you if you haven't given him anything consistently.
>> That's according to him.
>> Okay. Well, you haven't provided me with anything different.
Okay.
>> Even after the ruling, the tension doesn't disappear. The mother's comment about the father getting a job reveals how differently these two view the situation. But the judge immediately points out a contradiction. It's difficult to accuse someone of living off you when consistent support was never provided. This exchange perfectly captures why the court sided with documented facts rather than personal opinions.
>> Is there anything further, sir? No, not too much. Um, as long as she doesn't want to be around and she's willing to financially help support him, then maybe I can go off and further my education and and be a better father and mother.
>> Sounds good to me. So, if there's nothing further from either of you, you all are dismissed.
>> Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Okay. You know what, ma'am? Cut it.
>> What started as a father's plea for help ended with a powerful ruling on accountability. The court recognized years of caregiving, ordered ongoing child support, required health insurance coverage, and imposed substantial back support. But beyond the numbers, the most striking part of this case was a child searching for answers about an absent parent. If this case stunned you too, drop your take in the comments, hit like and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> All rise. Judge Bund Court is now in session. Judge, this is case number JVB1038 Brown case.
>> Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.
>> You all may be seated. Okay, Miss Brown, you brought this case before the court.
What's going on?
>> Well, your honor, my sister, Jazz, she drops her four children off at my house all the time. I have one child. Um, that's all I had. And so, I'm looking to receive some child support for these children. Um, because they're I'm taking care of them more than she is.
>> And how many children did you say?
>> She has four children.
>> And all four live with you?
They Yes. Do they or don't they?
>> They're there all the time. So, yes.
Okay. How long have they been living?
>> All the time.
>> Excuse me, ma'am.
>> All right, guys. This one walks straight into a messy family courtroom battle that instantly spirals out of control. A sister isn't just asking for help. She's asking the court to step in after years of unpaid responsibility, broken promises, and four children left in the middle of it all. What starts as a simple support request quickly turns into accusations, excuses, and emotional chaos. And the judge, they're about to uncover a truth nobody's ready for.
Would you step in for family like this?
>> I'm talking to her. I'm not talking to you. You will have your opportunity to speak in just a moment. Okay. So, how long have they been living with you?
>> For about 3 years now.
>> 3 years.
>> That is all the time. And has your sister given you any type of child support for her kids? No, she has not.
She has given me She'll give me $20 here and there, but >> $20 for four kids.
>> 20 $20. Yeah.
>> What about health insurance? How are these children covered under health insurance?
>> They do not have health insurance.
>> Cuz you won't put them on there.
>> Excuse me.
That's That's the last outburst from you. Okay.
>> Here we see the foundation of the entire case being laid out for children allegedly living with their aunt full-time for nearly 3 years. Legally, that's not just helping out. that can establish financial responsibility. The judge is already locking in on one key issue, custody in practice versus custody on paper. And notice how quickly tension rises when the petitioner tries to explain herself while being interrupted. That's the first sign this isn't just about money, it's about control and accountability.
>> Thank you. Health insurance. Um, is it available through your job?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Okay, it is. So, if I were to order that the children are enrolled in health insurance, you're able to do that through your employer?
>> Yes, I am. I I work for an advertising firm. So, >> Okay.
>> Yeah, they should be able to do that.
>> Do you know about how much it would cost?
>> Um, roughly two $250 for all four.
>> Okay. 250 for all four. Okay. All right.
Is there anything else you want to let me know before I move over here to your sister?
>> Now, the financial reality hits hard.
$20 here and there for four kids over years. That detail changes everything in the courtroom. The judge isn't reacting emotionally yet, but you can hear the concern building. No health insurance, no stable support system, just inconsistent contributions. And when employer coverage comes up, it quietly exposes something important. Support was available but never used. At this point, the legal question becomes unavoidable.
Why were the children left in this situation so long?
>> No, you can. Now it's your turn. First off, those are her nieces. She never says no when I drop them off.
>> Those are your kids.
>> I understand that. But I'm trying to make a living for me and my kids. I am an upcoming artist. I have to go to clubs every night to make >> What kind of artist are you?
>> Um, I sing and I rap.
>> I've never heard you. You >> Okay. Well, do you go on Spotify? Cuz I'm on there.
>> This moment shifts from information gathering to confrontation. The judge is no longer just asking questions. They're testing responsibility. The sister finally admits she works and has access to benefits, yet the children remain uninsured. In family court, that's a critical failure point because the court doesn't just look at intention, it looks at action. And right now, the actions described are painting a picture of neglect, even if unintentional.
>> I can think for y'all right now.
>> No, thank you. Look, but I mean, here's the reality of it is you have four children that you need to support. All right. Regardless, you're not supporting them giving them $20.
>> $20 is not $20. Excuse me. $20 is barely enough to purchase two of them something to eat at a fast food restaurant.
>> Okay. I dropped them off with some little daddy cakes sometimes. Like they good. It's a >> Did you really just say that >> they are five, four, and three? Like they don't need no big old meal or nothing.
>> Five, four, and three. You're missing one. You don't even know how.
>> Okay.
>> They're both five. Yes, ma'am.
>> Two five. So, you expect her to >> And here comes the emotional clash. The sister defending herself, claiming she's trying to survive and build a career as an upcoming artist. But the court isn't moved by ambition alone. It's focused on responsibility. When she says she has to go out nightly to work, the judge hears instability. This is where legal reality collides with personal justification.
And the real question becomes, can personal struggle excuse years of inconsistent care for four children?
>> Support four children of Little Debbie Snacks.
>> Is that what you're telling me?
>> Little Debbie Snacks. So, how is she supporting my Little Debbie Saxs?
>> And you think there's nothing wrong with what you're saying, right?
>> Uh, no. I'm doing what I can.
>> Well, you need to sing some more because obviously you're underpaid and you need to be paying yourself. I'm upcoming so I can be underpaid. I'm getting whatever I can get. I do nails on the side, too.
>> This is where the case turns sharply.
The judge calls out the reality for children cannot be supported on inconsistent drop offs and snacks. The emotional tone shifts from questioning to correction, and the aunt's frustration breaks through. She's overwhelmed, trying to explain survival conditions for kids under her care. But the courtroom doesn't accept making do as a legal standard. It wants structure, consistency, and accountability.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah.
>> So, how much are you making with doing nails?
>> Uh, I mean, whenever I have a client, like every day, maybe 300 a week, maybe that.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> And how much of that do you give your sister besides $20?
>> Oh, whenever I get that, >> I give her a little bit of something.
>> That is unacceptable. And the fact that you came in this courtroom and actually admitted that is very sad.
>> Admitted what? that you have not been supporting your ch. You know what? I'm not about to >> Now we see justification turning into contradiction. The argument about feeding children little Debbie snacks becomes a turning point. It's not just about food. It's about mindset. The judge is visibly rejecting the idea that minimal effort equals sufficient care.
And when numbers and ages of the children get confused, it further damages credibility. In court, details matter and confusion often signals deeper instability.
>> Play this game. Obviously, you came here to waste my time. You have not been supporting them with $20 in Little Debbie snacks. And don't say that.
>> Talking about a couple times $20.
>> A couple of times is a couple of times if you drop Hold on. Hold on one second.
It is not her responsibility to take care of your children. If you are going to leave your Excuse me. You obviously don't understand because you're not listening to what I said.
If you are going to leave your children with your sister, first of all, it needs to be an agreement that she even wants to take in.
>> Here, financial truth starts emerging clearly. The sister admits low weekly income from nails and side work. The judge now has a clearer picture. Limited income, but still responsibility for four children being shifted onto someone else. This is where family court becomes mathematical and emotional at the same time. Because regardless of income size, the legal obligation to support your children never disappears.
>> Four additional children.
She could say that. She's never said that.
>> No, it doesn't matter. These are your children, not hers. So, you know what's going to happen today? You're going to pay her some child support and it's going to be more than $20. I can assure you that. You said you provided this. Who? Never mind. It this tax return. Who did this?
Uh, >> one of her boyfriends.
>> No, one of her boyfriend.
>> It was my last baby daddy mafia. Okay.
He did it for me.
>> He been doing taxes for years.
>> Right.
>> The courtroom tension peaks again as the judge calls out the admission of minimal support. The phrase that is unacceptable isn't just emotional, it's legal positioning. The court is establishing a record of failure to provide adequate support. And when a party openly admits it, there's very little room left for defense. At this stage, the case is shifting toward calculation, not debate.
>> And he reported you at $30,000 a year.
>> Yeah, about that.
>> That's that's all you make?
>> Yeah, just about that.
>> Let me go ahead and calculate these numbers because you obviously came here to waste my time.
>> So, at $30,000, I have your gross calculated at $2,500.
>> Yeah.
>> Excuse me.
>> Are you painting your nails in my courtroom?
>> Uh, yeah. I didn't have time cuz I had to be here. Go ahead. put the top on that nail polish because I need you to pay attention when I read these numbers off to you.
>> Now things escalate with financial documents and tax returns being questioned. The introduction of income reports changes everything. This is no longer just testimony. It's evidence and the judge is now building a structured calculation of obligation. In family court, once income is established, support isn't optional. It becomes formuladriven. And that's where emotional arguments start losing ground fast >> because I can assure you I can assure you to know what I make.
>> I can assure you it's going to be more than $20. How about that?
>> You see, you see what I have to deal with.
>> I definitely see what you have to deal with, but you know, I can't necessarily control how your sister behaves, but we can make sure that you are receiving more than $20. Okay.
>> I appreciate that.
>> So, at $2500 gross, >> that brings your net to $2,04.
Mhm.
>> And you said $250.
>> Okay. So, your child support obligation for four children is going to be $71 plus.
>> $71? I can't afford that. I got gas.
>> Oh, now you're paying attention. I got >> Oh, okay.
>> This is the breaking point. The judge runs the numbers and the support obligation lands at a level far beyond what either party expected. The reaction in court is immediate. Shock, denial, frustration. But legally, the calculation is grounded in income, number of dependents, and responsibility distribution. And when the judge reminds her that ambition doesn't remove obligation, it becomes clear the court is prioritizing the children, not the excuses.
>> So $71 plus the $250 comes out to $951 a month.
>> I don't have that, ma'am. So, >> well, you know what? It doesn't matter.
So, why do I see you on Instagram popping bottles at the club? Why don't you see that?
>> Guess what? Guess what? It doesn't even matter. It doesn't even matter. You know why? Because you're up and coming, which means one day you're going to be up and you're going to be coming to pay this $951 in child support. Is there anything further?
>> No.
>> Is there anything further?
>> I ain't got that. I already told you that.
>> Okay. So, you don't have any other questions? All right. You all are dismissed.
>> So, in the end, this wasn't just a disagreement between sisters. It became a full legal reckoning over responsibility, income, and the reality of raising four children. The courtroom stripped away emotion and focused on obligation. And the final order reflected that shift completely. But it still leaves one big question hanging.
When family support turns into legal enforcement, who really wins and who pays the price? If this case stunned you, too. Drop your take in the comments, hit like, and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> All right, Judge Vunder B. Court is now in session. Judge, this is case number JVB10008, Bishop versus Sension.
>> Thank you. You all may be seated.
>> All right, guys. This one hits straight at the heart of a messy custody and child support battle. A young child, two parents, and a courtroom that quickly turns into a clash of responsibility, excuses, and shocking admissions. What starts as a simple complaint about support slowly unravels into something far more controversial. Stick around because this case takes a turn you won't expect.
>> Okay, Mr. Bishop.
>> Yes.
>> You brought this case before the court.
What's going on?
>> Well, my girlfriend Linda, she hasn't been supporting the child like I feel like she should be doing.
>> Here we are introduced to Mr. Bishop bringing the case forward. But what's interesting is the confusion right away.
This isn't just about emotions. It's about responsibility. The court is already trying to separate frustration from legal obligation. Is this really about the child's well-being or a breakdown in co-parenting communication?
That's the question hanging in the air.
>> What do you mean she hasn't been supporting the child? You talking about emotional support? You're talking about financial support. What is What type of support you >> financial support actually being there visiting? is >> Bishop claims the mother isn't supporting the child. But the moment details come out, things get complicated. Support here isn't just financial. It's emotional presence, visitation, consistency, and suddenly the courtroom shifts from a complaint into a deeper question. What does real parental support actually mean under the law?
>> Very rare that she comes around.
>> And >> what is it that you're asking me to do about that? Well, I would like to have some kind of financial support from her in and if we could set up some sort of visitation that she actually is in the child's life.
>> Okay. How old is the child?
>> The judge tries to pin down exactly what's being requested. And this is where legal clarity matters. Financial support versus visitation are two totally different legal issues. You can't blur them together in court. This moment sets the foundation because whatever happens next will depend on defining those responsibilities correctly.
>> Two years old.
>> Two years old.
>> Two years old.
>> You don't visit with the baby?
>> No, I mean I'm >> No, >> I have a night job and so I sleep during the day so it's really hard.
>> So because you have a night job, you cannot spend time with your baby. That's what you're saying today?
>> Yes, your honor.
>> And you're okay with that?
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Do you not want to be a mom? No, your honor. The child. I did not want the child. Philip convinced me to have.
>> Now, the reality hits. A 2-year-old child involved and visitation becomes the challenge. The parent admits their schedule makes it hard to see the child.
But in court, hard doesn't always mean optional. The judge is now weighing practicality against parental duty, and that tension is starting to build >> him. I thought it would be okay, but it ended up being a boy, not a girl.
>> So, let me get this straight. You do not want the child because it's a boy and not a girl.
>> Correct. That is like the most ridiculous thing anybody has ever said in my courtroom because of the gender.
>> This is where things get emotionally heavy. One parent openly says they don't want the child linking it to work and circumstances. But in the eyes of a court, parental responsibility isn't conditional on convenience or lifestyle.
This statement alone shifts the entire energy in the room. It's no longer just a dispute. It's accountability on trial.
>> So, do you not think you need to be paying child support to him?
>> No, he makes more money than I do.
>> But he has the full responsibility of parenting the child. You're not doing anything. You don't even want the baby.
>> Yeah. If he wanted the baby, he should take care of it then.
>> You made that up. Okay, let's let's go ahead and move forward because Okay. How much money do you make?
>> 4,000 a month.
>> 4,000 4,000. What do you do for a living?
>> I'm an entertainer.
>> What does that mean?
>> I'm an exotic dancer.
>> Oh, okay. So, $4,000. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute. So, you mean to tell me that exotic dancers cannot be in their children's lives?
>> The reason given is shocking, the child's gender, and the courtroom immediately reacts. This is where personal bias clashes directly with legal expectation. Can a parent choose involvement based on something like this? The judge makes it clear emotionally driven reasoning like this doesn't hold weight in custody responsibility.
>> Oh, no. You said you don't want to be in the child's life.
>> Yes.
>> You just want him to pay you child support and you want him to assume the full responsibility of taking care of the child too because he wanted the child.
>> Well, I didn't want child support from him. He can just have but you don't want him to pay.
>> Now the focus shifts sharply. Income, lifestyle, and responsibility. The idea that one parent should carry all responsibility while the other opts out is challenged headon. The court isn't interested in excuses anymore. It's about fairness, contribution, and what the law requires from both parents, not just one.
>> I mean, you don't want to pay him.
Correct. No, that's not how this works.
He is not going to be the one that takes care of the child 100% of the time and then you just get to go dance or whatever it is that you do. I'm not exactly sure what you do at your overnight job. That's just not how it works. So, let me tell you what we're going to do. You're going to start paying him child support a month. Now, in terms of visitation, >> when the occupation is revealed, an entertainer, an exotic dancer, the courtroom energy changes again. But the judge pushes past stigma and focuses on income and responsibility. This moment exposes an important legal truth.
Occupation doesn't erase parental duty.
The law doesn't judge the job, it judges responsibility. If she doesn't want to visit with the child, there's nothing I can do to make her do that. However, she will start paying some sort of child support today. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> And you understand that?
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Okay. You have a problem with that?
>> No, your honor.
>> Okay. Just making sure. So, at $4,000.
>> Now, the ruling direction becomes clear.
The judge lays it out bluntly. One parent cannot abandon responsibility while expecting the other to carry everything. Even visitation can't be forced, but financial responsibility, that's enforcable. This is the turning point where accountability becomes legally binding. A month I have your net calculated at $3,266.81, which brings your child support amount to you only have one child, $653.36.
And you cover health insurance.
>> Yes.
>> How much is it?
>> $344 a month.
>> 300. And that's for the child only. That doesn't include you, right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Okay. So, that amount is going to be added to that.
>> Here comes the math and the reality check. Income is calculated, deductions applied, and child support is finalized.
It's no longer emotional. It's numerical and enforceable. The courtroom tension settles into something final, a structured obligation that will continue monthly regardless of personal disagreements. So 65336 plus the $344 that he pays in health insurance will be $997.36 a month. Okay.
>> Okay. All right. That should be enough for you to cover anything that you need to get for the child. And just so you know, this child is going to grow up obviously. He's 2 years old now. He can come back later as you know his life changes. He starts going to school. He might want to put him in private school or, you know, anything like that. any type of extracurricular activities. He comes back in here, you've made more money. You already know what's going to happen, right?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> What's going to happen?
>> I'll have to pay more.
>> Oh, okay. Long as you understand that.
All right. Is there anything further?
>> No, your honor.
>> Okay. If there's nothing further, you all are dismissed.
>> Okay.
>> This case ends with a clear ruling.
child support established, visitation left unresolved, and responsibility firmly placed on both sides in different ways. What stands out most is how quickly personal choices turned into legal consequences. If this case stunned you, too, drop your take in the comments, hit like, and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> You all may be seated.
>> Okay, Miss Stone, you brought this case before the court. What's going on?
>> All right, guys. This one hits harder than it looks at first glance. A twin sister, a missing mother, and a four-year-old child caught in the middle. What started as a family arrangement has now turned into a full courtroom battle over responsibility, abandonment, and survival? And the question looming over everything is simple but brutal. When family fails a child, who steps in and who pays the price?
>> Okay, so basically this is my twin sister. She dropped off her child to me about like 6 months ago.
Dropped her off saying that she was going to come back, run to the store, and literally never came back. Um I've been taking care of her. I myself has two other kids as well. Um the the little girl, her name is uh Karina.
Okay.
>> We're immediately thrown into a situation where the aunt has basically become a full-time caregiver without legal preparation or financial backup.
She's not just helping out. She's raising a child, covering medical costs, and carrying emotional weight that was never officially hers. And notice how quickly the story shifts from temporary help to 6 months of silence from the mother. That silence, that's what the court is now treating as abandonment.
>> But uh Karina, so she >> How does Karina?
>> She's four years old.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Um, she's been getting sick a lot.
I I've been taking her to a doctor, but out of my pocket, it's been it's been hard to take care of all that. Um, and from what I hear, my sister over here has been up in the club twerking and not taking care of her responsibilities and not doing what she needs to do.
>> Why? Why is it funny when when she finishes, then I will come to you.
>> The emotional tension spikes when the aunt describes the child's health issues and financial strain. This isn't just about custody. It's about survival.
Every doctor visit, every expense is coming out of her pocket. And then we get the first courtroom warning about behavior, laughter, and disrespect during serious allegations. That moment matters because it signals how seriously the judge is treating this claim of neglect.
>> But there would be no laughing in here, >> especially about what don't be sorry, just don't do it. Especially about what she just said allegedly that you're doing.
>> Um, but that's basically it. I'm here.
I'm here to uh request child support from her. Uh that that is my niece and I do want her to, you know, be okay, but I can't take care of her by myself.
>> Okay. All right. So, you what's your name?
>> I'm Christina Stone.
>> Okay.
>> Mhm.
>> Now, the mother finally speaks and instantly tries to reframe everything as family drama that shouldn't be in court.
But legally, that argument collapses fast because once a child is left in someone else's care for months without support, it stops being a private issue.
It becomes a legal responsibility and the judge is already steering the conversation toward accountability, not reconciliation.
>> All right, Christina.
>> Mhm.
>> What do you have to say about what your sister said?
>> Basically, I just feel like we shouldn't even be here. We're sisters. This is a family matter. I don't even know why she even brought me here. Um, I have tried to contact her and for some reason I have not been able to get a hold of her.
>> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold on one sec. You seem to be upset.
>> Yes, I am very upset because she's over here.
>> She should be upset if what she says is true that you left Karina with her after going to the store. Is that true?
>> And she hasn't even called me at all.
That's a lot of her one second.
>> Here we see emotional deflection. The mother claims she couldn't be contacted and shifts frustration back onto her sister. But the judge isn't accepting vague explanations. It's a strict yes or no line of questioning for a reason.
Courts don't operate on feelings. They operate on facts. And right now, the facts are stacking up against the mother's version of events.
>> It's a yes or no. Is that true? Did you leave Karina? Okay. She should be the one upset. You left your daughter. Have not come back. She's paying things out of pocket. Your daughter has health issues and you're not giving her any type of financial assistance. She should be upset. I don't understand your attitude.
>> I understand, but we are blood. We are family. I am going through a lot myself.
>> What are you going through?
>> Well, my baby father in jail, so it's hard for me to really >> What he in jail for?
>> This is where the case takes a sharp emotional turn. The judge directly confronts a reality. A child left behind, no financial support, and medical needs ignored. And instead of a clear defense, we get an emotional justification involving personal struggles and relationship issues. But in custody law, hardship doesn't erase responsibility. It only explains context, not consequences.
>> Um, he got involved in some he got involved in some drugs and >> he's a dead beat. He ain't taking care of nobody.
>> Oh, okay.
>> So, basically, yeah, he got involved with some drugs. He ended up in the penitentiary. And >> how long has he been in there? He's been in there for about two to three years, two and a half, something like that.
>> So, he doesn't really know Karina then.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Unfortunately.
>> All right.
Okay. And I see that dad was served by way of you through the penit, excuse me, the penitentiary system. So, he was ordered, you know, to not necessarily be here because he can't be here, but he is aware that this hearing is taking So >> now we learn the father is incarcerated which legally shifts full responsibility on to the mother. Even though he's absent, the court still formally acknowledges his notice through the system. But practically speaking, this hearing is now centered entirely on the mother's ability or failure to provide.
And that sets the stage for financial orders they're about to hit hard. Yeah, I understand that it's a family matter, but at the end of the day, she's still doing something she is not obligated to do, and you do need to pay her child.
You and dad both, but it wouldn't be right to put dad on child support today, considering he's not here um and he's in a penitentiary. Do you know how long he would be in there?
>> Uh he has about four more years left.
>> Okay. So, in four years, you guys can come back to court and then we can modify it. But as far as today, you are going to start paying her some child support.
>> Well, what if I just get the custody back? You ain't even taking care of her.
>> Judge makes a critical legal point here.
Family disputes don't cancel child support obligations. Even if custody is disputed emotionally, the child's needs remain the priority. And the mother's suggestion of just getting custody back gets shut down immediately because there's no evidence she maintained care.
Legally, status follows behavior. And right now, the ants care is what matters.
>> What do you mean?
>> I could take care of my own child.
>> No, I haven't seen you on YouTube.
YouTube will just address me. Okay. You never had custody from the sounds of it.
If you dropped your daughter off and never went back, she has been in rightful custody of your daughter, not you. So, I can't make her overturn that situation. I mean, she's been doing it. That's what's right. And what's right is that you should pay child support. You'd agree with me, right?
>> This is a defining moment. Custody reality versus emotional claim. The judge makes it clear. You don't just reclaim custody by saying you want it.
You prove stability, care, and consistency. And the mother's hesitation about employment raises red flags.
Courts don't punish low income, but they do evaluate truthfulness. And hesitation can damage credibility fast.
>> Well, I mean, I would eventually like to get my child back. Well, that's fine eventually, but today that's not what's going to happen. Okay. How much money do you make?
>> I make about 30 grand a year.
>> 30 grand a year. Okay. What do you do?
>> I work for a retail store.
>> You get commission?
>> I mean, I have other endeavors and stuff like, you know, side businesses.
>> Okay. But nothing that just generates a whole lot of money.
>> No.
>> Okay. So, this is what I'm going to do.
Do you have any other children?
>> I do not.
>> Okay. So, your child support obligation will start today and health insurance. Do you know how much it would cost to add the child only?
>> So, I had called around and they were quoting me about $500 >> for that child only.
>> Okay. If that child is You said you have two other children.
>> Mhm.
>> So, it's two other children. It'll be you and then Karina. Yes. So it'll be four people.
>> Now we move into financial analysis. The court breaks down income, insurance and obligations with surgical precision.
This is where emotion disappears and math takes over. Every number, income, household size, insurance cost gets converted into legal responsibility. And suddenly this isn't a family argument anymore. It's a structured financial judgment.
>> How much would it be total for your insurance? So for all of us uh I think they said >> so what I can do is divide it by four.
So individually each person would be $325.
So that would be the coverage that you will reimburse to your sister. Okay. In addition to child support.
So you said you have one child. I have your gross at $2,500 monthly, which brings your net to $2,146.92, and you have one child. That brings your child support obligation to $429.
>> The ruling becomes official. Monthly child support plus insurance reimbursement. And you can feel the tension when the judge addresses the mother's reaction directly because courtroom demeanor matters. Rolling eyes, frustration, denial. It doesn't change the order. The court's message is clear. Fairness isn't about agreement.
It's about obligation.
>> Plus, the health insurance at 325, your monthly obligation is $754 a month. You can roll your eyes all you want to. I'm really not bothered by that. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And based on what your sister said and based on your own admission, you're in the wrong. And it's only right that you pay her child support as well as health insurance so your daughter can get her health issues taken care of. Anything I said confuse you?
>> I understand.
>> Okay. Well, do you have any questions for me?
>> I don't.
>> Okay. Do you have any other questions?
>> No, ma'am.
>> Okay. If there's nothing further, you all are dismissed.
>> So, here's where everything lands. A child being raised by a relative. A mother now legally ordered to pay support. And a courtroom reminding everyone that responsibility doesn't disappear just because life gets complicated. This case isn't just about money. It's about what happens when family breaks down and the law has to step in. If this case stunned you, too.
Drop your take in the comments. Hit like and subscribe for more courtroom drama like this.
>> All rise. Judge Vunder B. Court is now in session. Judge, this is case number JVB1016, Cheney case. Judge, both parties have been sworn.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> You all may be seated. Okay. Is it Miss or Mrs. Cheney?
>> Uh, Mrs. Mrs. Cheney, you brought this case before the court. What's going on?
>> All right, guys. This one hits straight from a real courtroom battle over a child support dispute that quickly turns into a financial and emotional tugofwar.
On one side, a mother who carried the full burden from pregnancy to daycare bills alone. On the other, a father claiming limited income while trying to step back into the child's life. But nothing here is simple. What happens when love, money, and responsibility collide in court? and who really carries the weight of being a parent when things fall apart.
>> So, um we were friends. Um we went out for drinks after a promotion and um everybody else left. It left us two. Had a little too much to drink.
>> The case opens with both parties sworn in, but the tension is already thick.
Mrs. Cheney explains a night that started with drinks after a promotion and ended in an unplanned pregnancy.
What seems like a casual backstory quickly becomes the foundation of a serious legal fight. Because once the child is born, the real question isn't about what happened that night. It's about who stepped up afterward. And in this courtroom, silence speaks just as loudly as words.
>> Anyway, I end up pregnant. He's completely out of the picture. Doesn't answer text calls, whatever. All of a sudden, he uh comes to me and says he wants to be a part of our kids' life.
And um I said, "Okay, well, you're going to have to give me child support. I'm not just going to let you all of a sudden be dad, you know." And um >> How old is the child?
>> He's 18 months.
>> Okay.
>> 18 months. Yeah.
>> Okay. Continue.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Um so, yeah. So, um he's like, "Well, I can't pay child support, but I'll pay the daycare bill."
>> Daycare is $8.55 a month.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. He claims he only makes 24,000 a year.
>> Now, the emotional weight drops. The mother reveals she raised the child alone while the father disappeared completely. No calls, no texts, no support until suddenly he reappears wanting involvement. This shift is crucial in family court. Absence can't just be erased by intention. The judge is now listening for one thing, accountability. Because when a parent is gone during the hardest moments, coming back later changes the story. But does it change responsibility?
>> That adds up to almost half his income if that's what he actually said. I mean, this is not the way a guy who lives a life of $24,000. I mean, that suit probably cost like, I don't know, half that or something.
>> He has a nice suit.
>> I shop clearance.
>> Okay.
>> I do pretty well on sale.
>> He shops on clearance.
>> Okay. I've never seen that suit at J C Penney, but All right.
>> Okay. So, $855 a month in daycare.
>> Mhm.
>> You say you make $24,000 a year.
>> $24,000 a year. and I do have his tax returns that he produced, showing >> Here's where finances enter the fight.
The father claims he earns just $24,000 a year, yet the judge immediately questions how that matches his lifestyle. The courtroom starts picking apart credibility, tax returns, appearance, and self-reported income. In cases like this, numbers aren't just numbers. They become evidence of honesty or manipulation. And once the judge starts doubting income claims, everything else in the case becomes harder to defend.
>> $24,000 a year, but you're self-employed.
>> That is correct.
>> So, you did your own tax return?
>> I do. Yes.
>> So, is it accurate or did you manipulate it?
>> If you're questioning if I'm being honest in my tax returns, I am being honest in my tax returns, your honor.
>> Okay. Okay. And I can only go based off of what he produces. I can only go based off what he produces. Um, livingwise, do you live with someone?
>> Uh, I'm in a apartment sharing situation right now with the money I make every uh every month and with basically half close to half of my salary going to pay for daycare uh for a child. I've got a share. I can't afford my own place on my own.
>> Um, and living expenses, they're shared between your roommates.
>> Pretty much we kind of split the groceries, things like that. Utilities get split evenly.
>> Okay. The focus shifts to whether the father's financial disclosure is accurate or self-managed in a way that lowers obligations. The judge presses him because self-employment often creates gray areas. Income can be flexible, even adjustable. The courtroom tension rises because this isn't just about what he says he earns, but what he might be choosing to show on paper. And that difference could completely change child support calculations.
>> Well, that that then that kind of makes sense. So, you're asking what exactly are you asking for him to do?
>> My name is Naroo Witherspoon. I'm an attorney and I'm licensed in Illinois, Texas, and Missouri. I handle cases for families all over the nation. And I want to talk to you about Vonda Bailey. Uh Vonda Bailey is a family law attorney and she handles high-profile, high- netw worth cases. If you're listening to this message and you're a high value individual, a high-profile individual, you must give Vonda Bailey a call. What does that mean? If you have properties, if you have assets, if you have 401k plans, compensation packages that are complex, I want you to give Vonda Bailey a call. Vonda Bailey, she's an amazing attorney. She might be expensive, but it's worth it. Give Vonda Bailey a call.
A sudden interruption breaks the courtroom rhythm with attorney promotion talk, almost like a reminder that behind every case is a legal industry built around these disputes. But once the focus returns, the real concern surfaces, how can someone afford nearly $900 in daycare yet claim inability to pay child support? That contradiction becomes the emotional trigger point for the judge and the audience watching this unfold.
My point is that it seems kind of sketchy that he can afford almost $900 a month in daycare but won't pay child support. I feel like there's something going on with the money situation.
There's got to be a reason why he's doing things the way he does.
>> So, you want him to pay $855 in daycare and child support?
>> I mean, he wants to be a part of his life. I >> That's my question. Did you want do you want him to pay $855 in daycare as well as pay child support on top of that?
>> I want us to be able to talk and discuss and find a number that works for both of us and I that I think is fair.
>> Okay.
>> Just because I make more money than him doesn't mean I should be covering all of the child's expenses. 855 is dayare.
>> I definitely agree with that. I agree with that. So what what is the middle ground that you're looking for? because legally he cannot pay daycare and child support. I mean you you can't have it both ways.
So what would be a middle ground for you?
>> I guess we'd have to kind of discuss what would be what would be child support versus daycare and how the >> Now the argument sharpens. The judge challenges both sides about fairness.
why daycare costs and child support are being treated separately when they both support the same child. The mother pushes for balance, not punishment. But the court makes one thing clear. You can't stack financial obligations without structure. This is where legal logic clashes with emotional frustration, and neither side is fully satisfied yet.
>> Um, parental responsibilities would change. Would he get him on weekends?
Would he get him on holidays? Things like that. So, cuz he doesn't live real close either, you know. Well, we're here today, so let's discuss it. Um, like I said, he cannot pay daycare on top of child support. It just can't happen. So, if you were to give him a number that's in between the 24,000 that I mean, because when you break that down based on child support for one child, it's not a lot of money. So, if you were, let's say it's about $300 in child support. If you add that to 855, you're talking about child support in excess of $1,000. Are you asking that he pay $1,000 in child support?
>> I guess not exactly. I don't >> Well, I'm still trying to figure out why you're here and what you're asking me to do.
>> I guess I'm just trying to figure out what to do with the situation with him.
I'm not I don't have a law degree. I don't have a lawyer. I don't know exactly how these things work.
>> Okay. and and I'm helping you guys as much as I can.
>> Yeah. So, I didn't know that you couldn't do daycare and and child support, and I don't know what >> Here comes the legal turning point. The judge explains a critical rule. Daycare and child support can't both be fully charged on top of each other without adjustment. This is where family law becomes technical. It's about offsets, fairness, and structured responsibility.
But for the mother, it still feels like she's carrying more of the burden. And that tension between law and lived reality is what makes these cases so complex.
>> I I mean I've never had child support before. I never I have no idea. I don't know, >> you know what what you can do, what you can't do, what happens with visitation and stuff like that. You know, he was absent the entire first year. Completely absent. So I paid 100% of everything.
>> You know, he was in the hospital after he was born. I took care of those bills.
>> And you didn't give her any money?
>> Not at that point, your honor. No. What what was the reason for that?
>> Uh I was effectively in the same situation I am now. Again, being self-employed, my income has not gone up. Um there there was a little bit of a disconnect between the two of us. I probably looking back should have stepped in sooner and that's all I'm trying to do now.
>> Okay.
>> I want to have a relationship with our son. Um the amount I'm paying on a monthly basis is already again 45% or so. Uh >> yeah, it's a lot >> of of my income. I don't know the percentages etc what I'm required to do I feel I'm already stepping up and by paying the full daycare as far as I know and I've talked to some friends I'm paying more than I actually have >> because if we were to break down based on what it is that he makes if we were to break down and you only have one child >> the mother admits confusion and that moment is powerful she's not a lawyer she's navigating a system she doesn't fully understand while raising a child alone the father meanwhile claims financial strain and partial responsibility. This is where courtroom dynamics shift. Confusion from one side, justification from the other, and the judge is now forced to translate emotion into legal structure.
>> Okay. If we were to break down >> that he knows of just go, >> how would you know?
>> Well, he knocked me up and left for a year. So, I mean, there might be some other women out there. Wait a minute. In fairness, >> they may not be able to count how many partners they've been with, but I know it was his kids. fairness. In fairness, he wasn't alone in knocking you up.
>> I get that. And I took 100% responsibility for that child for a for a full 12 months on him.
>> Let's not blame it all on him.
>> You have one child, correct? Correct.
>> Okay. So, let's stick to what is in front of us. We're not worried about any other children that may be out there.
So, based on the financial documents that he provided, at 20%, his child support should only be about $349.
Hi guys, I hope you're enjoying the show. My name is Vonda Bailey and I'm a licensed attorney in the state of Texas and I handle matters that are related to child support, child custody, divorce, and adoption. So, if you need help in any one of those areas, please feel free to give me a call.
And then health insurance is paid through you.
>> Yes.
>> How much do you pay?
>> Uh, it's like 130 or something a month. I'm not It comes right out of my check, so I'm not sure the exact amount of it. Okay. Okay.
Um I'm looking >> 130 133 something like that.
>> I'm looking at what you also turned and it looks like it's about $113.
>> 13. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So this is what we're going to do to make it fair because he is paying about >> tensions spike when past absence is raised again including accusations about other possible relationships. The judge steps in firmly. This is not a trial about speculation but about the child in front of them. It's a reminder that family court strips everything down to relevance. And in that moment, emotional arguments lose weight unless they directly impact the child's welfare or financial reality.
>> Three times the amount that his child support should be.
>> Yeah. Well, his bar bills are about the price of that, too. So, >> well, so are yours. But, as I was saying, his child support is going to be set at what the daycare amount is.
That's the fairest way to do it. At least we know that by you paying daycare, the child's daycare expense is covered each month. So, that's something you do not have to worry about. And you will have to reimburse her for the um health insurance that she has on the child. So, when you add the 855 plus the 113, it comes out to $968 a month in child support.
So, 968 would be all that he pays. And out of that, that would include whatever. If if you change daycarees, let me just make sure I'm I'm very clear on this. If you change daycarees and the amount goes up to $1,000, all he's responsible for is the 855 for the daycare. That's it. That's all you're responsible for. But the health insurance, if you have health insurance available through your job, you can enroll the child under health insurance and remove that 113 additional charge and you'll be only responsible for $855.
>> To make sure I understand, so I'm already paying $855 a month as compared to the 3.49 that you calculated I should be responsible for. Whoa.
>> So, so, so, so now we're saying, well, instead of basing it off of 3.49, potentially lowering it, or at least the two of us coming to some sort of agreement, saying, you know, I'm already paying 45% of my salary, I've got to pay now 9.68 a month, which is again more than double what I'm supposed to be paying in child support. You've been but you've been paying although it's a it's three times the amount you've been comfortably paying this this isn't something that she necessarily well when I say comfortably I don't know your financial situation but you've been paying it for some time >> with with roommates and >> right and I understand I understand but under Texas law we can deviate from what the guidelines support should be >> now the ruling starts to take shape the judge breaks down actual numbers, guidelines, percentages, and what is considered fair under law. The final calculation ties daycare and support into a structured monthly obligation. It may feel higher to one party and fair to the other, but legally it's about stability for the child. And this is where emotion finally gives way to enforceable order.
>> If we find good reason to do it, and daycare expenses, they are considered one of those reasons. Now, if you two, I mean, right, while you're here, you want to agree to a lesser amount, if you want to meet in the middle, and say, let's say you decide to do 700, let's say you decide to say 750, that's what you can do. Um, but based on what you all have been telling me, you've been paying daycare, it's 855. That would be in the best interest of the child to at least make sure that the daycare expenses cover. If you, like I said, if you guys decide to come with something different, you can come back and modify that and I'd be happy to enter in the number that you all come up with. Is there anything further today?
>> Okay. Anything further?
>> No, thank you.
>> Okay. Well, there's nothing further you all have dismissed.
>> In the end, this case wasn't just about money. It was about responsibility catching up with time. One parent carried the early burden alone, while the other re-entered the picture under legal obligation. The court didn't pick sides. Emotionally, it calculated fairness through law. But it still leaves one question hanging. If you were the judge, would you have ruled the same way? If this case stunned you too, drop your take in the comments. Hit like and subscribe for more courtroom drama like
Videos Relacionados
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
ترمب وأسواق المال الأميركية.. كيف أنعش "رأسمالية المطلعين"؟ - شرق غرب
AsharqBusiness
282 views•2026-06-04
They Dismissed Every Black Juror in the Karmelo Anthony Trial — Every Single One
Tim_Black
406 views•2026-06-04
Crashes involving e-bikes can mean gray area regarding insurance coverage
fox31
210 views•2026-06-05
Detroit Put Him on Trial
Off-LimitsAmerica
121 views•2026-06-05
