Your memory is correct, IMO. There were multiple posts early on that seemed to suggest the Aungs were wealthy. Since both father and son do appear to have qualified for public defenders it appears to me they aren't actually rich. The family may own multiple businesses but there may be a great deal of debt too.
I'm not entirely sure where the idea of the Aungs' wealth came from. But if it started as opinion, the initially-posted MOOs, JMOs, etc were soon forgotten. The notion the Aungs were wealthy seemed to be quickly accepted as fact on WS. Perhaps the apparent wealth of NC's family made it seem more likely her fiance's family would be rich? Perhaps the idea was easily adopted because it made the case more "tragic" and "stereotypical" if it involved a poor struggling but hardworking mom and a rich spoiled and lazy dad? (Of course, we know nothing about what SH and AA are really like. But we may think we do.)
Also though SH and her family members have said things that supported the idea. For example, from a June post from
@PommyMommy
Missing 2-Year-Old Seraya Aung's Grandmother Joins Court TV
The grandmother said
"ETA: 22:36 "The custody battle itself, I mean they were in a great position; they had lawyers, we had nothing. We did mediation to settle for 50/50. We were terrified to go up against them with no representation, and so that's what Samara ultimately settled for because they were going for full custody with no visitation for Samara."
The mom has said similar things about the Aungs having plenty of resources re: custody. Of course, sometimes a person has a vested interest in promoting certain "truths." But more importantly, each person in a shared situation has a unique perspective. So that's true of everyone in this case including the grandmother & the mother. And that's fine. What's not fine is accepting what a person says (especially if sympathetic to him/her) as representing "factual truth" when it very well may not. There are other public places the grandmother has made statements about the finances of each family but I don't think they can be discussed here. Regardless, as is true for any other person on the planet, her perspective may not represent objective truth.
Finally, the statement from the Aung family (no longer available online but did used at length on WS) did attempt to draw a sharp contrast between the two families. As I recall, the main differences cited were
not couched in terms of finances but one
might infer from what was said there were financial differences too. That statement can't be assumed to represent objective truth either, of course.
I don't know what goes on in WA, but in NC a fairly detailed "Affidavit of Indigency" must be completed and sworn to in order to qualify for a public defender or court-appointed attorney. Income, assets AND debts are taken into account as are aspects of the household including number of dependents, and the cost of housing, transportation, food, health insurance, child support, etc. Also, in NC if a person is found guilty of the charges, he/she may be assessed a certain amount to reimburse the state for the legal services provided. So those services may not really be "free."
MOO