January 22nd, 2010
02:03 PM ET
5 years ago

Bristol Palin demands child support

Bristol Palin is demanding Levi Johnston start paying up.
Bristol Palin is demanding Levi Johnston start paying up.

(CNN) - Bristol Palin is demanding Levi Johnston start paying up.

According to court documents filed Thursday in Alaska and posted on the Web site TMZ, the 19 year-old daughter of Sarah Palin is demanding the father of her one year-old son pay $1,750 a month in child support payments.

Palin is also seeking back payments beginning from late December 2008, when the child was born.

According to the court filing, Palin says Johnston made "in excess of 105,000 in 2009 through various media interviews and modeling related activities."

Palin also says she has received only "sporadic financial assistance" from Johnston over the last year - $4,400 in total.

Johnston's manager contends Palin has been paid more than $10,000 by Johnston since her son was born, according to TMZ.

Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said in a statement to CNN: "Bristol has set forth the facts regarding child support in her affidavit filed in court. The law in Alaska is clear: a parent is obligated to support his or her child. It is unfortunate Bristol has to seek court intervention in this regard."


Filed under: Bristol Palin • Levi Johnston • Popular Posts
soundoff (300 Responses)
  1. Anonymous

    News maybe. But for the Ticker?

    January 22, 2010 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm |
  2. Johnny DC

    How is this "political news"?

    Anything to mock the potential future GOP candidate and stir up controversy, right CNN?

    January 22, 2010 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  3. Carmon

    Lol they called him a bum, dogged him in the media, denied him and his family visitation to his child now he's making over 100,000 a year. go figure. Can you please insert foot in mouth Bristol and Sarah.

    January 22, 2010 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  4. John

    OK, as much as I dislike all things Palin, this just does not belong in the "political" ticker, TMZ maybe, but CNN? No. Please, leave the tabloid fodder to the tabloids.

    January 22, 2010 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  5. MissyW

    If he is the father, he needs to support his child however he is also entitled to share custody of his child or at the very least have visitatioin rights which is why I bet she hadn't gone after him sooner.

    January 22, 2010 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  6. Kevin in Ohio

    This belongs on a tabloid, CNN, not the political ticker. Is your need to satisfy the hatemongers of the liberal left so strong that you can't help it?

    January 22, 2010 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  7. PDC

    I thought she was trying to take his parental rights away? Now she wants his money while taking away a father's child? Family values we can all get behind! What a fraud.

    January 22, 2010 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  8. gary in OK

    CNN will do anything to increase their ratings. Why is the non-payment of child support between two individuals, who hold no political office, listed on the political ticker page?

    Report the news and leave this garbage to the entertainment tabloids.

    January 22, 2010 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm |
  9. Boston mom

    Johnston's managers has apparently failed to realize in his comment that "more than $10K has been paid by Johnston since HER son was born" ?? isn't this his child too??? since THEIR son was born! takes 2 to tango, even AFTER the birth...

    January 22, 2010 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm |
  10. Skip

    Why is this story on the Political Ticker?? Why is CNN posting it at all?
    It belongs in National Enquirer! Come on CNN there are REAL stories out there.

    Skip

    January 22, 2010 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
  11. Mark

    Why are people calling her "money-hungry"? Doesn't her child deserve to be supported by BOTH parents? And isn't child support based on what the non-custodial parent earns? $1,750 doesn't sound like that much to me. But then again, I'm not poor like a lot of the people posting here.

    January 22, 2010 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
  12. SocialismBad

    It's about time she makes that loser pay up! She should have asked for more. If it wasn't for his relationship with her, the deadbeat wouldn't have ANY income.

    January 22, 2010 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
  13. dreadnaught

    CNN=People Magazine?

    January 22, 2010 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  14. Scott

    If this is politics, we are in more trouble than I thought!!!!!

    January 22, 2010 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  15. SusanH

    $1700 a month???? Im a single mother and child support for one child is NOT 1700 a month, why is her child worth more than anyone elses in the legal system??????hmmm
    She is evil and greedy like her mother, guess those apples dont fall far from the trees!

    January 22, 2010 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  16. Paul , St. Louis MO

    These two were the poster Children for Family values at the 2008 Republican Convention. They are roll models for the youth of Today. Of course this is news worthy.

    January 22, 2010 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  17. Elizabeth in Florida

    $1750 a month in "child support"? Is she living at home with Mommy? How can anyone spend $1750 a month in child support? Don't the Repugnants stand for pulling yourself up, no $$ for welfare "queens"? Maybe that is only for the truly poor.

    January 22, 2010 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  18. R.A.

    She IS her mother's daughter.

    January 22, 2010 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  19. Felicia King

    The child needs to be taken care, not the parent. The child needs to see both his/her parents. One parent cannot deny the other parents rights to see the child. One parent cannot enforce the other to pay for his/her fancy material wants.
    Child support is for the child, and the child only.

    January 22, 2010 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  20. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    Given that you let him see his child so infrequently and he is only 19 or so, that doesn't mean you should get so much in child support. Have your mom support you since she will be make a boat load from Fox. Was there any attempt to reach Levi and have some understanding? This doesn't sound like it.

    January 22, 2010 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  21. once upon a horse

    sorry CNN but this really has nothing to do with politics. All this is is just something to rile up the pro and anti Palin people. There are child support battles going on everyday...this isn't worth a spot on PT.

    January 22, 2010 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  22. Ben in Texas

    I haven't seen anyone address the Extreme Court decision in terms of the fact that corporations are multi-national. It would be completely possible for a Saudi head of a corporation that operates in the U.S. to buy an election, under this ruling.

    Repugnants are so concerned that Gitmo detainees and others might receive due process normally accorded to American citizens, but at the same time, they're giddy over the fact that corporations, which may be headed by foreigners, can now buy politicians outright and produce libelous ads against any candidate who opposes their interests. It's what they call "free speech".

    If a corporation is legally a "person", then does the corporation go to jail when it commits a crime? Does a corporation bleed? Can a corporation marry, and if so, can it marry another corporation of the same sex? Why is a mom and pop grocery a "business" and a corporation a "person"?

    January 22, 2010 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  23. Rick McDaniel

    There's always working for a living.

    January 22, 2010 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  24. Marie

    This really isn't news for the Ticker, but I'll chime in anyway. He should be paying child support – a fair amount (whatever that is) determined by an impartial party after negotiation. This is no-brainer and not news.

    January 22, 2010 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  25. Ruth

    Bristol must have Sarah as a coach–telling her what to do. Both are money grabbing witches. It takes two to tango. She slept around and now wants someone to keep her and her son up. Sickening.

    January 22, 2010 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12