Live in Ho - a Kardashin, say it isnt so. For Kim, ok. for Chloe - send the paper bag packing.
Be careful about signing prenups - they are not the ironclad paradise we all think they are.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Last edited by mykalberta; 03-25-2010 at 12:55 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mykalberta For This Useful Post:
The system truly is screwed up. Consider a man working full time and his wife stays at home to raise the 4 kids, even home schooling them. Years later, he discovers from the kids that she has not been home schooling them for a long time, just telling them to work and then leaving the house. On top of that, she files for divorce and she is now entitled to an exhorbitant amount of spousal support because she has no job plus a large amount of child support if the kids are with her at least half the time. She fights for the kids that she doesn't seem to want to even be around because there is $ for having custody. In this actual case, it is fortunate that three of the kids are old enough to choose their parenting situation and ALL of them choose to be with their dad full time. That actually put the child support burden back on her and partially offsets the spousal support. If the kids were any younger, he'd be forking out up to $4k a month in total support.
__________________
"...but I'm feeling MUCH better now." -John Astin, Night Court
I have always thought the default legal position should be the kids spend their time equally with both parents and no money is involved.
This is becoming the default position. "No money involved" is only fair if each parent has a similar income, or are capable of earning similar incomes.
I have always thought the default legal position should be the kids spend their time equally with both parents and no money is involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
This is becoming the default position. "No money involved" is only fair if each parent has a similar income, or are capable of earning similar incomes.
With your experience, what would you say the percentages were? 10%? 20%? more? ... where both parents have equal access and no money is involved?
Frankly, I still believe that the current court system still heavily favors the mother in custody agreements (with the father having access.... but we all know how THAT works in a LOT of cases)... and the father paying child support and the mother pays nothing..... even if the children DO spend a significant time with the dad (but their primary residence is with the mother).
I just hear too many cases out there where the fathers get screwed, to believe otherwise..
With your experience, what would you say the percentages were? 10%? 20%? more? ... where both parents have equal access and no money is involved?
Frankly, I still believe that the current court system still heavily favors the mother in custody agreements (with the father having access.... but we all know how THAT works in a LOT of cases)... and the father paying child support and the mother pays nothing..... even if the children DO spend a significant time with the dad (but their primary residence is with the mother).
I just hear too many cases out there where the fathers get screwed, to believe otherwise..
It would be hard to estimate - most custody arrangements are worked out without litigation. The people that go to court really don't understand what harm they are doing to the children.
Support and access are seperate issues, and should not be tied together.
Parents should be forced to learn about the legal and social conquences of separation before they have children.
For every father that is "screwed" there are probably 10 mothers with deadbeat exes.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
This is becoming the default position. "No money involved" is only fair if each parent has a similar income, or are capable of earning similar incomes.
I don't see what income has to do with it, a child costs a certain amount to raise, each parent has a responsibility to find the money, no one bails a wife out who's husband gets laid off when they are together, or if the old man dies and they don't have insurance.
You get divorced you look after your kids half the time, it should be up to you to make enough to do the job, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.
I don't see what income has to do with it, a child costs a certain amount to raise, each parent has a responsibility to find the money, no one bails a wife out who's husband gets laid off when they are together, or if the old man dies and they don't have insurance.
You get divorced you look after your kids half the time, it should be up to you to make enough to do the job, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.
I don't see what income has to do with it, a child costs a certain amount to raise, each parent has a responsibility to find the money, no one bails a wife out who's husband gets laid off when they are together, or if the old man dies and they don't have insurance.
You get divorced you look after your kids half the time, it should be up to you to make enough to do the job, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.
Should children live like millionaires in one household, and like paupers in the other?
Should children live like millionaires in one household, and like paupers in the other?
Should any kids anywhere live like paupers, why is it fair that kids on the down town east side live like paupers, its not their fault their parents are chumps.
At the end of the day if men and women are equal then why should one side support the other no matter what they earn?
I don't see what income has to do with it, a child costs a certain amount to raise, each parent has a responsibility to find the money, no one bails a wife out who's husband gets laid off when they are together, or if the old man dies and they don't have insurance.
You get divorced you look after your kids half the time, it should be up to you to make enough to do the job, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.
I imagine your kids wouldn't really want to come live with you in your cardboard house, when mum and their new daddy have a waterfront mansion with toys and, ohhh, a shower.
I imagine your kids wouldn't really want to come live with you in your cardboard house, when mum and their new daddy have a waterfront mansion with toys and, ohhh, a shower.
Welcome to a lot of guys reality. they get stuck in a one bedroom basement suite with no money, they end up losing their kids and effectively just becoming a pay cheque because they arn't able to afford an extra bedroom, toys etc...
How many millionaires out there are there that this applies to as opposed to some schmuck that works at the plant, earns about the same as his wife and ends up with no life and no kids, it isn't much better for her either, but the default position where she gets to stay at the house and gets child support while the case is sorted out for 4 or 5 years leaves most ordinary guys screwed both financially and as a parent.
i also think there would be a hell of a lot less divorce if both parties knew they would have to both support themselves and take on the role of parent.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 03-25-2010 at 03:15 PM.
For every father that is "screwed" there are probably 10 mothers with deadbeat exes.
This.
There is a dude/friend bias at play too in any story you're likely to hear. Father's getting the shaft are probably the exception and those stories probably stick out more.
Plus, you tend to relate to your friends and believe their side of the story. When you don't have both sides of the story, it's a lot easier to think that your friend Bill whom you have known since elementary school is getting hosed over by his ex-wife than it is to come to terms with having befriended a deadbeat. Cognitive dissonance.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to fredr123 For This Useful Post:
There is a dude/friend bias at play too in any story you're likely to hear. Father's getting the shaft are probably the exception and those stories probably stick out more.
Plus, you tend to relate to your friends and believe their side of the story. When you don't have both sides of the story, it's a lot easier to think that your friend Bill whom you have known since elementary school is getting hosed over by his ex-wife than it is to come to terms with having befriended a deadbeat. Cognitive dissonance.
I'd agree but I also think we have a society and a legal system that doesn't really look at men as parents in a divorce, they are still seen as predominantly just breadwinners, I think this puts guys in a position where they can lose their sense of responsibility, they have limited time with their kids anyway, they get laid off or the like and feel like they arn't really proper dads anyway so they bugger off.
The problem is anything the women say is generally believed no matter what. I know for a fact that my mom lied in her deposition and under oath about things regarding my dad and it wasnt even questioned. So its not so much that men are always getting screwed as it is that if the woman wants too, she can burry him.
It would be hard to estimate - most custody arrangements are worked out without litigation. The people that go to court really don't understand what harm they are doing to the children.
Support and access are seperate issues, and should not be tied together.
Parents should be forced to learn about the legal and social conquences of separation before they have children.
For every father that is "screwed" there are probably 10 mothers with deadbeat exes.
Thats very true.... I've personally known/know a number of deadbeat dads who contribute nothing ($$$ or otherwise) towards the raising of their kids.
I'm sure everyone else on this board can say the same thing too. My own wife has a son (he's an adult now) and his biological father contributed NOTHING, after the divorce (they got divorced when the child was 2). .... not even an occasional birthday card.
My dad was basicly a deadbeat, and I had little to do with him or him me for years, I didn't get any insight into his actions until I went through a divorce myself and found that I lost everything, got stuck in a bachelor suite saw my daughter a few hours a week after being the primary caregiver for years. It was really tempting to just put it all behind me and move back to UK as the pain was endless and continual, found myself outside my ex's house after dropping my kid off sobbing, nearly drove my truck into a river at one stage.
I am lucky, I could and did put some contracts together and put myself in a situation where I could get a place for both me and my kid and furnish it etc, but for the first time I really understood why some guys just run away, and the more you love your kids the worse it is really.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
