Skip to content

Andre Rison indicted for failing to pay child support

andrerison

Former NFL wide receiver Andre Rison has been indicted by a federal grand jury for failing to pay child support in Arizona.

Rison, a five-time Pro Bowler in the 1990s, owes more than $10,000 in child support.

“According to the indictment, the defendant failed to pay a substantial child support order that has been past due for over two years,” Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Ann Birmingham Scheel told KVOA. “This indictment sends a message to others contemplating this same decision that failing to meet your financial obligation to your child is unacceptable and you will be held accountable.”

If convicted, Rison could serve up to two years in prison.

Rison played for the Colts, Falcons, Browns, Jaguars, Packers, Chiefs and Raiders during a 12-year NFL career. A native of Flint, Michigan, Rison is currently the head football coach at Flint Northwestern High School, where he recently earned his first career victory after going 0-9 last year.

Permalink 21 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill
21 Responses to “Andre Rison indicted for failing to pay child support”
  1. dolphindad says: Sep 2, 2011 3:08 PM

    the beauty of this story is that you can save it and just change out Rison’s name for Cromartie 10 years from now.

  2. boltfaninfalconcountry says: Sep 2, 2011 3:08 PM

    Brock Middlebrook strikes again.

  3. emeraldcityfan says: Sep 2, 2011 3:11 PM

    10K? I so thought it would be for more than that. Deadbeat Dad. Isn’t this the dude that was married to the TLC chick and she burned his house down??

  4. rc33 says: Sep 2, 2011 3:15 PM

    Congratulations on your first win, Coach!

  5. Mr. Super-Cool Awesome says: Sep 2, 2011 3:20 PM

    Child support is a shakedown.

  6. lgbarn says: Sep 2, 2011 3:22 PM

    emeraldcityfan says:
    Sep 2, 2011 3:11 PM
    10K? I so thought it would be for more than that. Deadbeat Dad. Isn’t this the dude that was married to the TLC chick and she burned his house down??

    —————————————————

    She wasn’t married to him and he probably deserved it. He was very abusive to her.

  7. beastofeden says: Sep 2, 2011 3:23 PM

    A native of Flint, Michigan

  8. eaglesfan290 says: Sep 2, 2011 3:42 PM

    I’m not advocating non-payment of child support, but let’s be realistic. If you read what the DA said “This indictment sends a message to others contemplating this same decision that failing to meet your financial obligation to your child is unacceptable and you will be held accountable.” IE the DA found the first famous name she could find on the past due child support list and filed a charge. We all know he has the 10K, and that isn’t very much………….and if over the past two years if he was paying nothing he would owe a lot more than 10K.

    This is politics and an elected official getting press so she can show she is going after deadbeat dads. The reality is it will cost the DA more than 10K to prosecute Rison for owing 10K, but that is your Tax dollars at work she just got herself free press…………I also bet if you look carefully she is up for re-election! How many other Deadbeat dads did she file charges on? Probably very few unless they owe a ton of money………that is the way the system works it costs more to go after them than they usually owe. I find it interesting how all courts have a LADY Justice statue, yet there is nothing even or blind about the justice handed out in our court system, typically it’s very arbitrary and capricious.

  9. managod777 says: Sep 2, 2011 3:51 PM

    I like Mr. Rison. I sympathized with him when Left Eye burned down his mansion. But if he did this to his innocent kids, to hell with him!! Send him to jail, then make him pay every cent when he gets out. And all that about a famous name…that’s why Vick did his bid, as well as Plaxico. Selective prosecution is a way of life for US!!!

  10. Deb says: Sep 2, 2011 3:53 PM

    @eaglesfan290 …

    What’s with all the emphasis on “Lady” Justice and the gender of the prosecutor? Do you actually believe male prosecutors don’t play these games? Come on. Yes, you could be absolutely right in your assessment of the prosecutor’s motives. But it doesn’t change the fact that Rison failed to pay his child support. If he had met his obligation to his kids, he wouldn’t be in this situation. Something tell me you’re blindly objective on this issue, either.

  11. punkymagee says: Sep 2, 2011 4:08 PM

    @eaglesfan290:

    Really? A lawyer engaged in politics? Shocking. Next you’ll be telling me that politicians don’t have their constituents’ best interests at heart.

    What do you find interesting about LADY justice statues, other than your veiled sexist hint that women somehow get better treatment in the court system? That might be true when it comes to child support and custody cases, but since women still make $0.77 on the $1 for what men make doing the exact same job, it’s only fair that men pay up to support the kids they helped make, wouldn’t ya say?

    Maybe you should be more concerned about why the court system has to make these guys support their own children in the first place.

  12. thetooloftools says: Sep 2, 2011 4:12 PM

    This was pulled from the “who didn’t see this coming” hall of fame.

  13. duanethomas says: Sep 2, 2011 4:16 PM

    Bad Moon Rising. Pay to play baby!

  14. snowpea84 says: Sep 2, 2011 5:17 PM

    Have you seen what people have to pay in child suport these days. In many cases the sums are outrageous.

  15. hodadhobbs says: Sep 2, 2011 5:25 PM

    Not excusing Mr. Rison and his responsibility for taking care of his children but my question is, why is this a Federal Crime and why is the Government empanelly a Federal Grand Jury on this. Child Support and issues with it should be in State Court. Maybe you Lawyer types can shed some light on this…since it has been over two years, did the estranged challenge the rulling or is it because the two lived in separate states?

  16. minnysoda says: Sep 2, 2011 7:11 PM

    Maybe he threw the money into Lake Michigan along with his SB 31 Ring. Mr. Dumass

  17. backindasaddle says: Sep 2, 2011 10:29 PM

    First and foremost….any father that does not support and work diligently to assure the well being of his own children is a piece of dog _ _ _ _. However, it needs to be understood that there are very real and very brutal prejudices within the court systems that rule on these matters. In liberal states it can be absolutely mind-boggling how unfair it can be. I’ll site a few cases that I’ve personally witnessed here in Massachusetts.

    Case 1: Brother-in-law gets divorced from wife. They have a single child. They are both professionals and both earn good $$$…..however, she makes substantially more than him. Court rules (essentially automatically) that she gets custody, he must move out of the house, she stays in the house, and he has to pay her child support. He did nothing wrong and gets screwed. Remember…she makes more than him, he still has to pay half the mortgage on the house, he now has to pay rent too, and he has to pay child support to the mother…who makes substantially more than him anyway. The problem here is that that mom can take dad’s “child support” and piss it away anyway she so chooses like disposable luxury money. He’s renting a flee bag apartment, has to pinch pennies, and she’s got it made….with child custody. Not fair. Fast forward to a month ago: The 19 year old daughter quits college and as a result child support ends abruptly (by law). When mom finds out that the child support payments will now end…..she throws her daughter out of the house immediately.

    Case 2: Family down the street. 4 kids. Father works full time….mom is a stay at home mom. They decide they need more room in the house. They hire a contractor to build an addition onto the house. Mom starts banging the contractor while dad’s at work and the kids are at school. She decides that she wants to divorce dad because she’s enjoying the horizontal bop so much with the contractor. Court rules that dad must move out of the house, she gets child custody (essentially automatic) and he must pay the entire mortgage because she does not work. The contractor with the rigid structural member moves in and the horizontal bop is all the rage. Dad did absolutely nothing wrong. The wife cheated on him. The courts completely screwed dad over. He has to pay rent for a hole-in-the-wall dump, he has to pay the entire mortgage and he has to pay child support for 4 kids….all the while that the sleazy contractor bangs his wife and lives in his house that he has to pay for. Of course the contractor and the wife don’t get married because that would ruin the gravy-train arrangement the courts set up….and of course, she has child custody. Not fair.

    Case 3: Friend with 2 kids gets divorced. He’s a regular working class guy. She does not work and is from a very wealthy family. She decides she wants to divorce him. The house has always been been paid by his salary…she never worked. He always supported the family on his salary. The court rules he must get out of the house, she will have custody (essentially automatic), he must pay the full mortgage and child support. He gets a seedy apartment in a ghetto because it’s all he can afford. While he pays rent, mortgage, child support to her….. she is also being subsidized by her rich parents and she spends loosely on fancy clothes and luxuries… for herself. Of course, she also has child custody. Not fair.

    I firmly believe fathers should be held responsible for financially supporting their kids (and just as importantly…being a good dad)…..however, the bias against men and unfairness in the judicial system is absolutely deplorable.

    Not fair.

  18. CKL says: Sep 3, 2011 11:35 AM

    @backindasaddle,
    I agree that dads get hosed a lot more than moms do.
    That’s why I liked EJ’s suggestion of a credit card for support where the paying party has an accounting every month of what was spent on what with their money so they can use it in court if the supportee is pissing it away.

  19. randomjim says: Sep 3, 2011 12:10 PM

    10K, that’s nothing. My wife’s ex owes us 35K. He should have been paying more at least 3 years before he stopped paying. Alcohol & ciggs are more important than his kid. SAD.

  20. backindasaddle says: Sep 3, 2011 12:49 PM

    CKL says:
    Sep 3, 2011 11:35 AM
    @backindasaddle,
    I agree that dads get hosed a lot more than moms do.
    That’s why I liked EJ’s suggestion of a credit card for support where the paying party has an accounting every month of what was spent on what with their money so they can use it in court if the supportee is pissing it away.
    **********************************************************************

    You would think that would be a good idea. But my impression is that the courts are more interested in extracting money from dad than they are about how mom spends it. There is virtually no mechanism (and the court simply does not care) for tracking mom’s spending. The only thing the court seems interested in is “social justice” for the mother and child. I hardly consider the blatant discrimination against the fathers to be justice of any kind. They should pay for their children without doubt, but mom’s need to held accountable. You know sometimes, maybe just sometimes, the mom is the irresponsible fruitloop in the relationship and the reason the marriage didn’t make it in the first place. Here in Massachusetts she’d have to be a certified mental patient or a convicted violent multiple offender in order for custody to be awarded to the father.

  21. CKL says: Sep 3, 2011 1:00 PM

    That’s a shame… #1 should be the welfare of the kids. Too many grownups who have ‘em are less responsible and more emotionally driven than their 5 year olds.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!