The very same folks who want to preach to us that “no human being is illegal” (because people enter the country illegally) wouldn’t acknowledge this child and refuse to treat her as their legitimate grandchild.
Hunter Biden is still in a legal battle with Navy’s mother, Lunden Roberts, because he wants to lower his child support payments. He’s claiming that he’s had “substantial material change” in his “financial circumstances.” What change? That he’s only making hundreds of thousands of dollars as an “artist” as opposed to millions with questionable foreign business deals? He’s living in a luxurious Malibu mansion and he can’t afford to pay for his child?
Now, Roberts has asked the judge in the case to allow their daughter to take the Biden name because the mother thinks it would help Navy in her life and is “synonymous with being well educated, successful, financially acute and politically powerful.” I’m not so sure that’s what anyone thinks when you say the name “Biden,” but that’s up to the mother and what’s in the best interests of the child. I’m thinking influence peddling doesn’t equal being “financially acute.” “To the extent, this is misconduct or neglect, it can be rectified by changing her last name to Biden so that she may undeniably be known to the world as the child of the defendant and member of the prestigious Biden family,” Roberts said in her filing.
Jill and Joe refuse to acknowledge their granddaughter existence and Hunter just asked judge to deny his 4-year-old daughter from taking his surname.
But remember, Jill said “decency” was on the ballot. pic.twitter.com/xuijXXjs2R
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) January 15, 2023
However, guess who doesn’t want that to happen? Hunter Biden. He has already denied her recognition as part of the family. Hunter first denied he had a relationship with Navy’s mother, then denied he was the father until DNA proved it. But now he’s asking the judge to deny his daughter the name as well. He’s claiming it’s a “lightning rod for criticism and would rob the child of a ‘peaceful existence.’” Hunter’s lawyer is asking that his daughter be allowed to decide for herself once “the disparagement of the Biden name is not at its height.”
How much gall does Hunter have? He hasn’t ever even met with the child, nor has Joe Biden, so I seriously doubt if they care much about her “peaceful existence.” Hunter has even cited criticism of him — including that from Roberts — as the reason the child shouldn’t get to have the name.
Biden, who became the center of national controversy after emails and records on his laptop allegedly revealed a scheme to sell his father’s influence for millions of dollars to American adversaries, cited criticism from his ex as proof that his family name is being dragged through the mud.
Biden pointed to court filings from Roberts that reference the federal probe into his tax affairs and his dealings with Ukrainian energy company Burisma in response to his request to lower his child support payments.
Talk about being a scummy human being. George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley eviscerated Hunter’s position.
The filing is so self-serving and transparently dishonest that it does what was once thought impossible: reach a new low for Hunter. All of his reported selfies having sex and doing drugs with prostitutes were shocking. His attacks on his former sister-in-law, Hallie Biden, widow of the deceased brother (with whom Hunter later had a romantic relationship), were appalling. However, the craven effort to deny this child his name reaches a level of cad that stands unrivaled.
The position of Hunter in court has been disgraceful, but the media has largely ignored the matter. It has also ignored the utter lack of support from President Joe Biden and the First Lady, who tellingly omitted a stocking for Navy Joan as one of their grandchildren. (The dog and cat did receive stockings). There is no record that Joe or Jill Biden have ever sought to meet, let alone embrace, their grandchild. The President has, however, sought to deny the child security protection (despite his son’s concern for her “peaceful existence”).
Turley also noted that Arkansas law would likely favor her getting the name if it was to the child’s benefit.
