Photo source: csnbayarea.com
So apparently according to TMZ, Los Angeles Dodgers baseball player Carl Crawford and soon-to-be father to former Basketball Wives Star Evelyn Lozada plans to take Amy Freeman, the mother of two of his children to court over child support. Allegedly, Amy Freeman plans to relocate from Arizona to California, so the children can be closer to their father. Carl, believes her intentions are not pure and she plans to relocate so she can receive more child support. Therefore, he plans to block her from moving closer. Apparently California child support laws are more generous than Arizona.
So what if Carl’s Babies Momma is moving to California purely to receive more money. Carl look at the bigger picture, you will play a bigger part in your children’s lives. Isn’t that worth a bigger pay out to the mother of their children? Think of the money you spend on trekking back and forth to Arizona. Now that money spent on travel can now be used to benefit the children and the mother who is with the children all the time without sacrificing face time with your children. You cannot make up cherished time with your kids. Put yourself in your children’s shoes, how would you feel hearing your father is restricting you from being closer to him?
In custody battles, there is so much focus on how much money the other parent will receive or pay. My perspective is to think of the children first. A quality education, normal childhood sprinkled with some culture, enriching activities along with the necessities of food and clothing should be a parent’s first priority. If you are worried to save a couple of hundred, yet sacrificing any of those needs of your children so you can keep pushing your Mercedes E-Class, you as a parent need to check your priorities and question why you wanted to become a parent in the first place. Parents time spent with your children is more valuable than money. So, because California laws are more generous than Arizona, who cares. Your lifestyle and career requires and affords you to live in California. So it should be afforded to the children and their mother.
Now I get Amy’s perspective too, the father of her children is about to father another child with Evelyn. Since Carl and Evelyn are together as a couple their baby will have one hundred percent of Carl’s time. She wants to make an even playing field so her children can benefit from their father the same as Carl and Evelyn’s child to be will. That is reasonable, and what mother wouldn’t want that for her children?
Stop fussing over dollars Carl and think of what will better benefit your children.
What are your thoughts? Should Carl prevent his mother and two children from relocating to California because he views she has ill-intentions?