Michael Strahan, one of the stars of the New York Football Giants (who won the Superbowl last year, I might add), is on a streak. From law.com,

Former New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan on Tuesday won his appeal from an $18,000-a-month child support obligation imposed in his 2006 divorce, which a New Jersey appellate court found both exorbitant and unfairly apportioned against him.

The decision focused on two issues. The Court held that the award below improperly ignored the fact that Jean Strahan was a college-educated woman who was capable of working but chose not to, thus shifting the support burden to Michael while Jean got a free ride.

The panel also agreed that income should be imputed to Jean Strahan, who decided not to work even though she held two college degrees, a previous career and “employment opportunities [that] were, in all likelihood, enhanced by her celebrity marriage.”

“There is no question that as a healthy, educated, forty-one year-old, defendant is capable of earning her own income,” added Parker, directing that on remand, the trial court should consider all possible sources of Jean Strahan’s income — earned and unearned — as well as her assets in determining her share of support.

As noted by Mike at C&F, this holding is quite extraordinary, as being a man in a child support proceeding is the only position in the law worse than a defendant in a criminal prosecution.

But New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Lorraine Parker, writing for the panel, went on to raise a rule that was new to me. Judge Parker referred to

the Kansas “Three Pony Rule,” which states that “‘no child, no matter how wealthy the parents, needs to be provided [with] more than three ponies.'” (quoting In re Patterson, 920 P.2d 450, 455 (Kan. App. 1996)).

Though applied to the needs of a child, this should be a life rule for all of us, along the lines of not eating anything bigger than your head. To appreciate its application here, consider what was claimed as necessary to support the Strahan children:

Those “needs,” wrote Appellate Division Judge Lorraine Parker, included the children giving their nanny a 10-day vacation in Jamaica; diamond jewelry for their grandmother; $30,000 yearly for landscaping expenses; $36,000 a year for “equipment and furnishings”; and $3,000 yearly for audio visual equipment. Jean set their clothing needs at $27,000 a year, since the children needed new outfits every time they saw their father and one of them demanded a new purse every time she left the house. “[T]he court made no distinction between what needs were reasonable, given the age of the children, and what simply amounted to a ‘fourth pony,'” wrote Parker, who was joined by Judges Rudy Coleman and Thomas Lyons.

Frankly, I’ve seen far worse, perhaps best described as the tenth or twentieth ponies. Perhaps the expectations of Manhattan power children are greater than those of New Jersey kids. After all, you can’t get much haute couture for the kiddies at $27,000 a year. That would barely keep them in Manolos for Children .

But the notion that three ponies are enough for any child is quite fascinating. Why only children? One of the questions asked over and over is when does someone have “enough”? We look at top level corporate, Wall Street and Biglaw salaries and perks, and wonder what was so special that they warranted a multi-multi-million=dollar bonus. Why so much? When is it enough?

I’m not questioning the capitalist right to make as much money as possible, but rather why anyone would need to pay out that much to anyone. How much does it take to motivate top talent?

What’s fascinating about this rule is that no person can ride more than one pony at a time, meaning that the second and third ponies are excessive from the outset. The rule gives latitude to excess, with the second pony reflecting a degree of wealth and privilege, and third distinguishing significant wealth from more ordinary wealth. But at the point where the child can flaunt the third pony, leaving no doubt as to the great wealth he enjoys, enough is enough.

As applied to child support, the point is that the parent’s wealth reaches a point where a simple percentage provides support that is so excessive to the child’s needs and lifestyle that it can no longer be justified. Certainly this is true, as the needs of a child of a wealthy parent do not increase simply because the parent’s income does.

But this also has meaning to the wealthy parent. Does anyone need more than three ponies?