“$2,800 a month is too little; I need $20,000!” — The explosive child support battle between Rick Ross and Tia Kemp.
One of the most notable personal disputes involving Rick Ross began with a seemingly simple figure: $2,800 per month.
Tia Kemp, the mother of Rick Ross’s son, took the child support issue back to court, seeking to raise the monthly payment to $20,000.
However, the story was not simply a case of “a mother wanting more money.”
Kemp argued that Rick Ross’s income and assets had grown significantly since the original child support agreement was established, while their son’s needs had also increased. She contended that the existing support was no longer sufficient to cover the boy’s requirements.
From $2,800 to $20,000
In 2015, Kemp petitioned the court to review the child support payments for their son, William Roberts III.
She initially sought a minimum of $2,800 per month but later raised her request to $20,000 per month.
Kemp maintained that Rick Ross’s career had flourished and his financial situation was vastly different from when the previous agreement was made.
She pointed to Ross’s business ventures—including Wingstop franchises, real estate holdings, and income from music and endorsements—arguing that if a father’s financial standing improves significantly, the level of support provided to the child should be re-evaluated.
Kemp also stated that she had no intention of “bleeding” Rick Ross dry.
According to statements cited by BET, her primary concern was ensuring better conditions for their son, including access to extracurricular activities and appropriate opportunities for personal development.
But Rick Ross had a completely different perspective.
Rick Ross disagreed with that view. The rapper opposed the request for increased child support, arguing that the $2,800 payment was sufficient to meet his son’s needs.
Ross also contended that Kemp had a responsibility to contribute to their son’s upbringing rather than relying entirely on his payments.
In legal filings, Ross’s team alleged that Kemp had been unemployed for an extended period and claimed she was not making a genuine effort to find work. He also refuted accusations that he was failing to fulfill his parental obligations.
In short, the two parties held completely opposing views on the same issue.
Kemp: Rick Ross has greater financial means, and their son deserves an appropriate level of support.
Ross: The current payment covers the child’s needs, and the mother should also contribute financially.
This dispute subsequently evolved into a protracted legal battle.
Did the judge actually say, “Get a job”?
This detail is frequently recounted on social media, but it is important to distinguish between viral anecdotes and the actual legal record.
I have found no reliable source indicating that the judge said those exact words:
“Hell nah, get a job.”
However, in 2018, BOSSIP reported that a judge dismissed the case after Rick Ross’s team argued that Kemp was “voluntarily underemployed and/or unemployed,” asserting that she should work instead of seeking an increase in child support.
Therefore, the phrase “get a job” is likely a social media summary or a paraphrase of the arguments presented in the case, rather than a verbatim quote from the judge—at least, there is no evidence to support that specific wording.
This distinction means the reality differs from the version circulating online.
And the story didn’t end the way the rumors suggested.
There is a crucial detail that many online posts often overlook.
After years of dispute, Rick Ross and Tia Kemp finally reached an agreement in June 2018. According to BOSSIP, the two parties signed an agreement on June 12, 2018, to resolve issues regarding child custody and support. The exact details of the agreement were not made public.
This means the story didn’t end with a “failed” mother being forced by the court to accept $2,800 indefinitely.
The reality was more complex.
The two parties ultimately reached a private agreement to settle the matter.
What really lay behind the $20,000 figure?
This is the part worth considering.
Upon hearing the story that “Rick Ross’s child’s mother was demanding $20,000 a month,” many immediately dismissed it as an unreasonable request.
However, according to reports from that time, Kemp cited specific reasons.
She argued that their son needed funds for psychological counseling, tutoring, summer camps, and sports activities, while also asserting that Ross had the financial means to cover these expenses.
Kemp also stated that she was struggling to meet those needs.
Therefore, the dispute wasn’t simply about the mother wanting more money.
It also centered on a question that frequently arises in child support cases:
When a father becomes increasingly wealthy, should his child enjoy a standard of living that better reflects the father’s new financial status?
That is a legal and practical issue far more complex than a single tweet.
Rick Ross is not the only one who holds this view.
In celebrity child support disputes, a common argument is:
“This money is for the child, not the mother.”
