7 ms·

He's also a spiteful, not very nice person. He had an acrimonious divorce where he essentially refused to minimally support his children as a multi millionaire

He's also a spiteful, not very nice person. He had an acrimonious divorce where he essentially refused to minimally support his children as a multi millionaire.[1] He cofounded Arista, but also sued Arista, and lost[2], through OptumSoft, his pet company, out of what can be summarized as spite[3]. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1071866.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1071866... [2] https://www.networkworld.com/article/3016667/court-finds-for-arista-in-eos-suit-with-co-founder.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3016667/court-finds-for... [3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-arista-networks-billionaire-co-214025776.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-arista-networks-billionai...

thr-nrg 3y ago
[flagged]
vlovich123 3y ago
I read [1] but I didn’t get the impression that he “minimally” supported his kids, especially since the wife’s appeal was basically largely ruled in his favor. Also, can we talk about how toxic some of the legislation in this area? > Children should share in the standard of living of both parents. > child's need is measured by the parents' current station in life. Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled. Additionally, all we know here are the financial amounts. I don’t think it tells us anything about his qualities as a parent. As for the lawsuit against a company he held a 20% stake in: > OptumSoft's CEO Henk Goosen tells us Arista hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain, and hasn't given back all the improvements made to TACC. I don’t really see where the spitefulness comes in here. Seems like a legitimate contracts dispute. Can you elaborate on where you’re getting this characterization of him personally? I’m not saying he is or isn’t. I’m just saying a couple of lawsuits tell you nothing about a person and a divorce proceeding rarely gives you a good representation of that person’s behavior as a spouse and parent.
- cloverich 3y ago
  Its not a law designed for billionaires, but rather reflects that people often choose to have kids based on their current and expected future station in life; pulling the plug on that isnt a choice we generally respect. Raising wealthy kids to be respectable citizens is something many rich people manage to do, but you likely need to be an involved parent to get good results. (agree with your general points)
- spicebox 3y ago
  > Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled I think the point is too make sure that kids don’t have a dramatic drop in their quality of life as a result of a divorce which (in my opinion) makes sense
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I don't really understand this idea. I get ensuring basic necessities are taken care of, by why shelter kids from drops in affluence beyond that?
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      Can you hack this by “losing your job” XX months before getting divorced? How long do you have to go before the lower level of affluence is established?
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but based on some horror stories out there, so I doubt it. It is fairly common for individuals to be assessed support based on "earning potential" earnings. This means that obligations are not reduced if someone changes to a less lucrative, but potentially more fulfilling career, or if they voluntarily retire when they could still be working. In my opinion, it is pretty twisted when earnings aren't based on a % of variable income.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    The real reason is that it makes it easier for courts to decide custody issues. Should the child go to a poor parent with no criminal record, or a rich parent with a criminal record? That’s also why courts don’t care too much that divorce usually causes a drop in the standard of living of both parents. It doesn’t make th decision any harder. As long as the drop in living standard results in equalized poverty, it’s not an issue. Which is pretty messed up, but that’s divorce. It can seem pretty crappy when you’re watching a court destroy your standard of living to feed your ex-wife’s drug habit. I’m happily married, and never divorced. But I’ve seen some things.
- trallnag 3y ago
  So the children an entitled to living a rich man's life?
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I can't speak to his personality, but 120k+/yr plus educational and housing trusts hardly seems minimal in 1990s dollars. That's about 240k/yr of child support in 2023 currency.
- 93po 3y ago
  There's also nothing wrong with fighting against payments you are legally required to make. It says nothing about how much he supports his kids outside child support payments, which he does, to the tune of hundreds of millions in trusts.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Child support can be covert alimony. Seems they separated and got back together with a prenuptial agreement that separated his assets from hers. It's very one sided, why did she agree to that? Infidelity? There is two sides to every story, can't condemn someone from what is presented here.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I don't even think the prenup is particularly unfair. Both would work and contribute to shared assets, with him presumably making a larger total contribution. This seems reasonable in a household where both parties are working and you don't have one which is only supporting the other. I never understood the rationale for considering all assets and income joint property in marital situations you don't have a dedicated/primary homemaker.
      - 93po 3y ago
        > I never understood the rationale for considering all assets and income joint property in marital situations you don't have a dedicated/primary homemaker. Because proving you're a homemaker is very difficult and a homemaker with no resources is unlikely to be successful very often in a court of law. Everyone is aware of the laws around joint property and the ramifications of divorce. If you don't like the prospect of losing half your shit, don't get married. Prenups are also often worthless if they're one-sided and frequently get entirely thrown out. My anecdotal observations have been that child support is also largely alimony in practice. I don't have strong feelings as to whether this is a good or bad thing.
bunnyfoofoo 3y ago
Is there an update on #1? Appeals court sent it back and I don’t see a conclusion.
throwaway202303 3y ago
[flagged]
- flangola7 3y ago
  This isn't 4chan. There are guidelines here and this comment breaks at least two of them.
  - throwaway202303 3y ago
    [flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
david38 3y ago
You don’t understand the meaning of “minimal”. Not showing your ex with money isn’t the same as “minimally supporting”.

thr-nrg 3y ago

[flagged]

vlovich123 3y ago

I read [1] but I didn’t get the impression that he “minimally” supported his kids, especially since the wife’s appeal was basically largely ruled in his favor. Also, can we talk about how toxic some of the legislation in this area? > Children should share in the standard of living of both parents. > child's need is measured by the parents' current station in life. Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled. Additionally, all we know here are the financial amounts. I don’t think it tells us anything about his qualities as a parent. As for the lawsuit against a company he held a 20% stake in: > OptumSoft's CEO Henk Goosen tells us Arista hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain, and hasn't given back all the improvements made to TACC. I don’t really see where the spitefulness comes in here. Seems like a legitimate contracts dispute. Can you elaborate on where you’re getting this characterization of him personally? I’m not saying he is or isn’t. I’m just saying a couple of lawsuits tell you nothing about a person and a divorce proceeding rarely gives you a good representation of that person’s behavior as a spouse and parent.

cloverich 3y ago
Its not a law designed for billionaires, but rather reflects that people often choose to have kids based on their current and expected future station in life; pulling the plug on that isnt a choice we generally respect. Raising wealthy kids to be respectable citizens is something many rich people manage to do, but you likely need to be an involved parent to get good results. (agree with your general points)
spicebox 3y ago
> Basically seems like a principle guaranteed to cause children of rich people to grow up entitled I think the point is too make sure that kids don’t have a dramatic drop in their quality of life as a result of a divorce which (in my opinion) makes sense
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I don't really understand this idea. I get ensuring basic necessities are taken care of, by why shelter kids from drops in affluence beyond that?
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Can you hack this by “losing your job” XX months before getting divorced? How long do you have to go before the lower level of affluence is established?
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but based on some horror stories out there, so I doubt it. It is fairly common for individuals to be assessed support based on "earning potential" earnings. This means that obligations are not reduced if someone changes to a less lucrative, but potentially more fulfilling career, or if they voluntarily retire when they could still be working. In my opinion, it is pretty twisted when earnings aren't based on a % of variable income.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  The real reason is that it makes it easier for courts to decide custody issues. Should the child go to a poor parent with no criminal record, or a rich parent with a criminal record? That’s also why courts don’t care too much that divorce usually causes a drop in the standard of living of both parents. It doesn’t make th decision any harder. As long as the drop in living standard results in equalized poverty, it’s not an issue. Which is pretty messed up, but that’s divorce. It can seem pretty crappy when you’re watching a court destroy your standard of living to feed your ex-wife’s drug habit. I’m happily married, and never divorced. But I’ve seen some things.
trallnag 3y ago
So the children an entitled to living a rich man's life?

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I can't speak to his personality, but 120k+/yr plus educational and housing trusts hardly seems minimal in 1990s dollars. That's about 240k/yr of child support in 2023 currency.

93po 3y ago
There's also nothing wrong with fighting against payments you are legally required to make. It says nothing about how much he supports his kids outside child support payments, which he does, to the tune of hundreds of millions in trusts.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Child support can be covert alimony. Seems they separated and got back together with a prenuptial agreement that separated his assets from hers. It's very one sided, why did she agree to that? Infidelity? There is two sides to every story, can't condemn someone from what is presented here.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I don't even think the prenup is particularly unfair. Both would work and contribute to shared assets, with him presumably making a larger total contribution. This seems reasonable in a household where both parties are working and you don't have one which is only supporting the other. I never understood the rationale for considering all assets and income joint property in marital situations you don't have a dedicated/primary homemaker.
    - 93po 3y ago
      > I never understood the rationale for considering all assets and income joint property in marital situations you don't have a dedicated/primary homemaker. Because proving you're a homemaker is very difficult and a homemaker with no resources is unlikely to be successful very often in a court of law. Everyone is aware of the laws around joint property and the ramifications of divorce. If you don't like the prospect of losing half your shit, don't get married. Prenups are also often worthless if they're one-sided and frequently get entirely thrown out. My anecdotal observations have been that child support is also largely alimony in practice. I don't have strong feelings as to whether this is a good or bad thing.

bunnyfoofoo 3y ago

Is there an update on #1? Appeals court sent it back and I don’t see a conclusion.

throwaway202303 3y ago

[flagged]

flangola7 3y ago
This isn't 4chan. There are guidelines here and this comment breaks at least two of them.
- throwaway202303 3y ago
  [flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

david38 3y ago

You don’t understand the meaning of “minimal”. Not showing your ex with money isn’t the same as “minimally supporting”.