Hunter Biden Says Ignoring Daughter Isn’t Illegal Amid Child Support Fight

Hunter Biden has taken an unapologetic legal stance in a bitter dispute with Lunden Roberts over their 7‑year‑old daughter, Navy Joan, arguing in court that his decision to cut off communication with the child sometimes described as “ghosting” does not amount to a legal violation.

The back‑and‑forth reached a new level this week in Arkansas family court as Roberts filed to reopen the child support case, accusing Hunter of breaking the spirit if not the letter of a 2023 settlement agreement.

Roberts’ motion describes how Hunter stopped all contact with Navy Joan in 2024 after a brief period where they were reportedly rebuilding a relationship through scheduled calls. In response, Hunter’s lawyers filed a blunt defense, stating that nowhere in the original court order is he legally required to talk to or visit his daughter. Because the settlement imposes no explicit communication requirement, they argue, his silence cannot be punished as contempt of court.

The defense filing said that the court order “does not expressly require Hunter Biden to speak with, visit, or otherwise communicate with Navy,” and therefore “no contempt has occurred.”

This legal argument underscores a broader trend family courts enforce financial obligations, not emotional ones. Unless a court specifically orders visitation or communication, a parent’s refusal to engage however troubling on a human level is generally not a criminal violation.

The dispute also touches on another key part of the 2023 deal: Hunter’s commitment to provide Navy with 30 original paintings or the proceeds from their sale. At the time, Hunter’s art had fetched prices as high as $500,000 per piece, raising eyebrows and headlines alike. But Roberts claims he has failed to deliver the paintings or proceeds. Hunter’s lawyers counter that the agreement did not provide a deadline, and therefore no breach has occurred yet.

That argument may carry less weight now that Hunter’s market has cooled. After President Joe Biden left the White House, sales of his son’s artworks reportedly declined meaning the promised financial value tied to those paintings could be diminishing quickly.

In her filings, Roberts also highlighted a stark family contrast: Navy Joan’s exclusion from major family life events. She pointed out that Hunter’s other children and grandchildren were at a lavish 2025 Thanksgiving in Nantucket with the Biden clan, while Navy was not invited. Roberts argues this disparity illustrates the practical harm of Hunter’s disengagement.

“While the court cannot force Hunter Biden to be a good dad,” her filing says, “it can ensure that Navy receives equitable financial support.”

The legal fight dates back to 2017, when the relationship between Hunter and Roberts began. Hunter initially denied knowing Roberts and denied paternity claims that crumbled after a 2019 DNA test confirmed he was Navy’s father. Yet even later, Hunter successfully fought to prevent Navy from using the “Biden” surname, a decision that remains controversial and emotionally charged.

This latest round of filings reveals an uncomfortable reality at the intersection of family law and public scrutiny:

• A parent can owe significant financial support without any legal duty to communicate emotionally.

• Courts typically enforce what is written, not what is ethically preferable.

• Settlement terms tied to variable market assets (like artwork) can become murky over time.

The broader political spotlight only makes this messier. As Hunter Biden’s legal troubles in other areas from federal tax probes to firearm cases continue to dominate headlines, his relationship with his youngest daughter becomes yet another public test of character.

For now, both sides wait on the Arkansas judge’s decision on whether to reopen the case. If granted, it could trigger a deeper look at whether the 2023 settlement holds up under changing circumstances including whether Hunter’s communication or lack thereof should factor into child support calculations.

This legal battle isn’t just about paperwork it’s about whether a court should enforce fairness when the law doesn’t clearly require it.

Share this story with others following the case and subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing legal updates.