is this why men are scared to divorce?????

[kuhaaica]

If it's that hard for them, why do they fight tooth and nail to keep the job after a divorce instead of letting him take on custody?

 

Because being a woman and baring children it is survival and instinct to care for and raise our "young". It is just the way it is....

as much as parenting is incrediably difficult it is our job, you may chose to have sex and have a baby but in the end it most likely will be the mother who will stick by her child thick and thin....no matter what.

 

we fight for it because we commited when we had those children and unlike some men we stick by our words, love, loyalty when it comes to our offspring. WALKING.... isnt an option.

[kuhaaica]

VERY VERY well said, i do all the same things for my 5 children while their dad just plays daddy once every two weeks for all the fun stuff, i am there for the REAL stuff, and i fought hard....

 

I commend you

[DN]

Because being a woman and baring children it is survival and instinct to care for and raise our "young". It is just the way it is....

as much as parenting is incrediably difficult it is our job, you may chose to have sex and have a baby but in the end it most likely will be the mother who will stick by her child thick and thin....no matter what.

 

we fight for it because we commited when we had those children and unlike some men we stick by our words, love, loyalty when it comes to our offspring. WALKING.... isnt an option.

 

Right - ask Susan Smith about that.

[wayne]

Because being a woman and baring children it is survival and instinct to care for and raise our "young". It is just the way it is....

as much as parenting is incrediably difficult it is our job, you may chose to have sex and have a baby but in the end it most likely will be the mother who will stick by her child thick and thin....no matter what.

 

we fight for it because we commited when we had those children and unlike some men we stick by our words, love, loyalty when it comes to our offspring. WALKING.... isnt an option.

 

Of course if you had to fight for custody, then the children's father most likely felt the exact same way.

[Robby Housel]

I think you are right, i am getting devoursed right now and will probobly have nothing when it is over not even my pride, woman enter into marrage thinking about the man they can make you into, and men enter into marrage hoping the woman never change, how is that going to work,going broke in lambertville NJ robby

[Shadows Light]

Of course if you had to fight for custody, then the children's father most likely felt the exact same way.

 

I'm sure its depends on person to person. Not everyone is alike and no two divorces are the same.

 

Mine did fight for custody. But he did it for leverage. In court.... he tried to hold the children for ransom... if I gave him XYZ... he'd drop the custody fight and give me custody.

 

HOW MESSED UP IS THAT?????

 

IF I gave him to what amounted to 75% of our home... he'd let the kids go?

 

I'd offered him a 50-50 split on the assets. With 75% going to him... where were my kids supposed to LIVE?????

 

What did he say??? You will easily find another man to buy you a house.

 

Mind you.... I've worked through out our entire marriage and BTW.. been the breadwinner through most of it.

 

Where and how.. did he imagine that I would house two small children???? Pawn them off on another man??? Thats messed up.

 

Thats MY STORY... I realize every story is different.

 

When he left.. I made sure I'd outfited and furnished his entire appartment. Why??? out of fairness... and because my children would be spending time there. I've heard the horror stories of other unfortunate men AND women.. coming out without anything. Not so in our case.

[MipiMissy]

IMHO 'who gets what' in a divorce all comes down to who hires the better lawyer! If you have a "play hard ball" lawyer chances are you'll come out with the better side of the coin! Oh, and which judge you go before is also a critical factor!

 

NOBODY wins in a divorce! EVERYONE loses to some extent!

 

Now guys... if you're really concerned about things being fair in divorce (especially when it comes to money) then perhaps you should start lobbying for fair pay and upward movement of women in the workforce. Latest figures show (from the Department of Labor) that women still make only about 75cents for every $1 a man makes.

 

Also, guys & gals, if you are truly concerned about the well being of your children - then consider the following:

 

1. The cost of raising a child does not diminish by 1/2 if you divorce the other parent.

2. Studies show that children survive divorce better IF:

 

 

For the most part (if you do the legal research as well as social research) you will find that in our present day time it isn't the woman who comes out with the better deal.

[DN]

The following article gives reasons why men as a gender earn more than women - it is from Australia but the reasons are much the same throughout the western world: link removed

[caninelover]

I WANT your wife's lawyer!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I also live in CA, not far from you. I hate that CA is a "no fault" and "community property" State where all the assets are split.

 

We own two houses (one we rent out) and most everything we own is due to my diligence and doing all the work to get the investment. I even had to pay off my husband's personal credit card (that probably included prostitues and porn) in order to get the mortgages I needed for investment.

 

We have no children together and in fact our kids are grown. Together 19 yrs. and married for 14. I paid for vacations, etc. We always have had separate bank accounts.

 

Now? My lawyer tells me that everything will have to be divided equally. I used to make more money that J, but after supporting him thru trade school a few years ago, he know makes around $13,000 per year more than I do.

 

How in the world do YOU lose most everything in CA????? Like I said, I want your wife's lawyer!

[avman]

I don't see why it should be any different if the female has been the breadwinner throughout the marriage instead of the male. Assets are joint property so they get divided down the middle. You aren't losing most everything, you are splitting things 50-50.

[tylercdurden2004]

The following article gives reasons why men as a gender earn more than women - it is from Australia but the reasons are much the same throughout the western world: link removed

 

 

Another reason is women often dont negotiate a better package. Robin Ryan points this out in "60 Seconds and You're Hired".

 

I have read this in several other places.

[COtuner]

I happened to come accross this old thread while looking for something else, and decided to bump it. This describes my ex-BF to a tee. He had stayed married for 28 years because of finances. There is a real problem in both perception of how they will be treated if they ask for a divorce, and in how the courts penalize men for asking to leave (and women sometimes).

 

Granted, he should not have sat and fretted for 18 years about whether or not he could survive a divorce financially (procrastination to an extreme level ), but it does prove that the fear exists. It's a bad thing. I'm not "pro-divorce" but I'm not pro-being miserable either. It happens, you can marry the wrong person. It should not be a crime to leave that person, just as you would if it was a LTR without a ring. Expectations of "maintaining a lifestyle" in a divorce settlement are at fault in my opinion.

 

Bad things happen to people that have nothing to do with divorce: you lose your job, unemployment does not "maintain your lifestyle". You get injured or hurt, your health insurance does not allow you to "maintain your lifestyle". Why, after a divorce based on sheer incompatibility (not wrongdoing of any sort), should someone not have to get out there and get a job and deal with it like other bad luck? A short time period to look for work or enroll in school if a stay at home mom is left without a job or income to support kids makes sense. Some child support makes sense. But to allow her to remain a stay at home mom for years and years as a divorcee on alimony makes no sense to me. But that is how the courts address things. They assume the status quo would remain forever.

 

I'm starting to rethink the concept of marriage the older I get. It really does seem to be more of a business contract than anything else. Right down to getting a "license" to marry (yes, I understand the reason for blood tests and the like, but come on... a license?). While I would like to marry if I found the right person, I wonder if it really matters if you're together for the right reasons? Divorce is a reality in today's society - can't you prepare for that possibility like any other catastrophe in life? Savings, skills, networking, education etc, even if you're a stay at home mom or dad? Pre-nups aren't only what I'm talking about - that's usually just a division of assets.

 

Ok, random morning thoughts from someone who's never been married, only engaged (and I walked away). Should go back to searching for what I really needed now...

[thejigsup]

If most men had the choice, most women would be left with no child or spousal support. Women are given the money they are because most (by no means all, but most) men would give little or nothing. I work in a Family Law office and the men constantly ask how they can end up paying nothing. It's really sad. If the man is given physical custody, the woman should pay him, also. By the way, women pay their attorney's fees no matter what. We have had female clients sell their homes, have garage sales, get second and third jobs, and all kinds of things to make sure we are paid. Men do not do that. Ever.

[Raoul]

If most men had the choice, most women would be left with no child or spousal support. Women are given the money they are because most (by no means all, but most) men would give little or nothing. I work in a Family Law office and the men constantly ask how they can end up paying nothing. It's really sad. If the man is given physical custody, the woman should pay him, also. By the way, women pay their attorney's fees no matter what. We have had female clients sell their homes, have garage sales, get second and third jobs, and all kinds of things to make sure we are paid. Men do not do that. Ever.

 

This is painted with way too broad a brush. My wife had an affair and left a 24 year marriage. She earns $87,000/yr. I earn a lot more because I run a solo consulting firm, travel and work 70-80 hours a week. I work a lot of hours and take a lot of risk. And I work from home so I was there for most of the caregiving for our children. I still do this and it is among my greatest joys and priveleges.

 

Court 'guidelines' give her large child support sums even though the kids are with me most of the time. And alimony she seeks exceeds $75,000/yr. She has great benefits which covered me and the kids. Now I have to buy my own benefits. But that doesn't make it into the court 'guidelines'. Its all based upon income differential. And, by the way, she gets her legal fees paid by me despite the fact that she had an affair and left our home.

 

My husband role was reduced to paying for most everything, figuring out how to raise and educate our children and try to provide for a secure retirement. So long as I didn't mind that my wife had a boyfriend and the corrosive effect of that on my children, it was okay with her.

 

I am weary of hearing that 'women are victims'. She blew up our family to be with an unempoyed bum and hang out in bars. My case is far from unique.

 

The affair and destruction of the marriage was a mugging, the divorce a rape and the settlement costitutes slavery. I pay her so that she can fall of a barstool and ignore her kids to the point where the court psychiatrist evaluating 'residential custody' mandated therapy for my 12-year old daughter for depression. Yet, 'family' law (what a joke that term is!) destroys my ability to care for my family.

 

Such is the 'victimization' of women in NJ/USA under 'no-fault' divorce with 'equitable distribution' of assets.

 

Half of everything we had until the divorce? Sure, that's fair. We built it together, so let's do that. But her legal bills, permanent alimony and child support when I have the kids and she is broke because she spends it all on nothing? Where is the 'equity' in that?

 

The grasshopper wins. But (along with our children) she will starve when winter gets here. The ant gets to pay for it and watch (under court orders) the destruction of everything. The grasshopper will simply eat her young when it turns cold.

 

Victim indeed.

 

Raoul

[WhatThe]

Raoul's story is not unique. The divorce laws in many states are criminal to the point that people are just refusing to marry. Men AND women are seeing what being married for a long period of time can mean, and they are just saying 'No'.

 

First off, people need to understand the difference between alimony and child support. Child support is an ethical and necessary obligation of BOTH parents to a minor child. It is right and proper that people should be forced to pay child support. Child support is always done through an equitable formula, although there are abuses, as in Raoul's case.

 

Alimony is *completely* different. Alimony is paid to a spouse to 'compensate' them after the divorce for being the lower wage earner in a marriage. It is indentured servitude for the higher earning ex-spouse, and nothing less.

 

Do you realize that 40% of children are now born out of wedlock? Why would that be? Well, one of the reasons is that the 'breadwinner' realizes that simply getting a marriage license bestows nothing positive on to the relationship but a small tax advantage, while the negatives can be huge, as Raoul found out.

 

"No Fault" divorce allows a spouse who is a slacker, male or female, to cheat on the marriage, demand a divorce, and be awarded LIFETIME alimony from the ex-spouse that they cheated on. How does this make any sense?

 

Alimony is not a debt, it is a court ordered obligation. Once you have been ordered to pay alimony, you MUST pay it. Bankruptcy does nothing to the obligation. If you lose your job, tough cookies. You must sell your assets to to pay the alimony. Only once you are indigent will the courts consider a reduction in most cases, and even then, they will order a temporary reduction with the amount not paid going into 'arrears', meaning it must be paid eventually. Imagine this scenario: you divorced, were ordered to pay $75K a year in alimony as Raoul faces, and you get remarried. You lose your job, and after three years of paying about half the alimony, you are now $100,000 in arrears. Because of the stress, you die of a heart attack. Guess what, your SECOND WIFE now has to pay alimony to your ex-wife! That's right, your SECOND WIFE, now has to support your FIRST! This is just twisted. By the way, if the second wife is unable to pay, she can be thrown in jail.

 

Alimony laws have been modified in a few states, recognizing that things are just not right. However, in most states, the divorce lawyers block any attempt at modification, because divorces and constant rehearings are how they make their money. We need a federal law equalizing and simplifying alimony statutes, and recognizing that allowing someone to be put into indentured serviture is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

[avman]

Guess what, your SECOND WIFE now has to pay alimony to your ex-wife! That's right, your SECOND WIFE, now has to support your FIRST! This is just twisted. By the way, if the second wife is unable to pay, she can be thrown in jail.

 

No, this is not true. While the estate of the person who died would be responsible for coming up with the $100,000 in arrears in your example the second wife is not obligated to continue the alimony payments to the first wife. That is an obligation that terminated once the husband died. The court order applies to the husband and not to his new spouse.

[thejigsup]

I don't know, I've worked in this office for 5 years and I have never met a man who willingly paid his child support. Ever! Our biggest workloads are men trying to get out of supporting their children. They have quit working, left town, got paid under the table, the list goes on and on. We also have to force them to pay their attorney's fees, and the rich ones are the worst! I know this is just my experience, but it cover 5 years and hundreds of divorces. The women almost always pay us on time, even if it is just $50 per month.

[DN]

Perhaps you might try working in an office where men are desperately trying to see their children and receive little or no help from anyone in enforcing their visitation rights. Many women don't pay child support to custodial fathers because the only way the fathers had a chance of custody was in waiving it. Injustices in family law cut both ways.

[Raoul]

I don't know, I've worked in this office for 5 years and I have never met a man who willingly paid his child support. Ever! Our biggest workloads are men trying to get out of supporting their children. They have quit working, left town, got paid under the table, the list goes on and on. We also have to force them to pay their attorney's fees, and the rich ones are the worst! I know this is just my experience, but it cover 5 years and hundreds of divorces. The women almost always pay us on time, even if it is just $50 per month.

 

You office is not the world. My experience is not the world either. But statistics say volumes about this beyone our puny experience. And they say that the overwhelming majority of men pay child support in full and on time. And as noted earlier, alimony and child support are two entirely different things.

 

With more that 50 % of divorces being filed by women and divorce laws from the 19th century as amended by the (necessary) feminist revolution of the 70's and 80s, the law in a long way from current reality. 'No fault' divorce is a disaster. Equitable distribution is inequitable. Children suffer the most.

 

The system is not fair or just to anyone. It is for the care and feeding of 'family practice (what a joke!) attorneys.

 

Raoul

[WhatThe]

No, this is not true. While the estate of the person who died would be responsible for coming up with the $100,000 in arrears in your example the second wife is not obligated to continue the alimony payments to the first wife. That is an obligation that terminated once the husband died. The court order applies to the husband and not to his new spouse.

 

The estate passes to the spouse, in this case, the second wife. SHE STILL MUST PAY THE ALIMONY IN ARREARS. This is true even if the second marriage only lasts a week before the death. Can you imagine? The fact is that the second wife ends up paying out of her own sweat the alimony to the first wife. It is an abomination.

 

Alimony should be limited to the amount and time necessary to get the lower earning spouse into a position to take a job that pays enough on which to live. Period. They are already getting their half of the marital assets! Anything beyond that is nothing more than punishment and indentured servitude. Remember, because of no fault divorces, the party traditionally perceived as being the one at fault is RECEIVING the alimony in many cases. A spouse can refuse to work, quit or get fired from jobs, cheat on their marriage, THEN file for divorce and get alimony, sometimes for life, all because their ex-spouse was a hard worker who loved them and cut them some slack.

[John Bendix]

Raoul,

 

Your statistic on how many divorces are filed first by the female is a little off. It is almost 70%. I did not know that NJ still granted lifetime (or until re-married) alimony. That's sad. There is no way to fight it on the grounds of infidelity?

 

I have written on the subject of No-Fault Divorce many times. The concept started in Texas in the late 60's and early 70's seemed like a decent idea to cut court times and costs in no contest divorces. I am sorry but the legal profession used it to maximize their income. The divorce rate has skyrocketed since its inception. One partner unilaterally decides to get out of the marriage due to the economic benefits they receive and their is nothing legally or financially the other partner can do about. The financial reprecusions of my divorce, scared more than anything.

 

To me, if only one wants to get out of the marriage (leave the child support issue out of it for the moment) to live another life or to be with someone else, here's your share of what we have accumulated and go. Nothing else.

 

The Constitutional question of endentured servitutde is a point well taken. As for Federal legislation, the Reserve Clause of the same document would forbid that under States Rights. Doubtful anyone will want to amend the Constitution (Reserve Clause) for this issue. Opens up too many cans of worms.

 

DN,

 

I agree with you even if my case is the exception. In Texas (No-Fault, community property state), I become the custodial parent and receive child support for my youngest (16) of $315.00 per month. That barely pays for his food. I do get the money as it is supposed to be taken out of her check. I did have to pay spousal support of $1,425.00 a month (plus $50,000.00 in cash) but for only three months as the court ordered. I believe 3 years is the limit for the purpose of getting that partner (when the income levels of each is so much different) "on their feet" but only if you have been married more than ten years.

[WhatThe]

Lifetime alimony is alive and well in many states, including NJ, MA, PA, CO, OR, CA, WA. Texas' laws seem very fair, and are what should be adopted everywhere.

 

Imagine if you had been ordered to pay that $1425 a month for life!

[Raoul]

Imagine if you had been ordered to pay that $1425 a month for life!

 

Try $5,500 for alimony alone.

 

Raoul

[WhatThe]

Given the alimony situation, is it any wonder the rate of marriage is plunging, especially second marriages?

 

- The first reason the marriage rate is dropping: If you are receiving alimony, it ends if you remarry. Why would anyone remarry under those circumstances?

 

- The second reason the marriage rate is dropping: If you are paying alimony, you are a financial liability to anyone that may want to marry you. Why would anyone voluntarily take on the burden of marrying someone paying alimony? Guess what? If your spouse is paying alimony to an ex, and your spouse loses their job, let's say for a severe health reason, YOUR income will be considered fair game to continue the alimony payments to the ex. Your spouse could be completely unable to work, but since you are, YOU will be required to continue the alimony to the ex. If you don't marry, they can't touch you. I actually know two couples who decided to live together instead of marrying for the express reason that they thought one person's ex would go to court to ask for more alimony based on their combined incomes.

 

- Given the high divorce rate and the onerous laws, why would anyone enter into any marriage when all it does is give the government the potential to garnish your wages for life? Child support is for a maximum of 18-21 years. Alimony can be f-o-r-e-v-e-r, and in many cases, like Raoul's, the alimony greatly exceeds the child support amount.

 

No one has ever been able to give me a reason why alimony should exceed the length of time it would take to get a person into the workforce and self-sustaining, assuming the marital assets have been split evenly. You can argue that someone in their 50's would have a hard time entering the workforce, but there is nothing to say that someone paying alimony is any better off, especially given the tenuous state of the job market. It is a throwback to the era when women were not in the workforce in large numbers. Today, in 33% of couples, the women makes more than the man. As more and more women get screwed by alimony, we can expect more awareness of the inequities, even though men are screwed more badly and more often than women. I actually know two women who pay alimony, and they are NOT happy about it.

 

A marriage should END when it ENDS. Having a court order requiring indefinite support to an ex-spouse is just crazy.

[Raoul]

Its actually worse than it seems. My wife earns $87,000 a year in a 'bulletproof' state job with stupendous benefits both now and in retirement. But the value of those benefits is ignored in the legal process. Actuaries determined that my wife really earns 180% of her 'income' or nearly $156,000/yr. Its true that I'm eligible for half of 24 years of her pension. But who knows what that means or how it will work? Best to plan for nothing.

 

Once divorced, I will need to buy my own health care benefits and continue funding my own retirement. But I will do that (or the court pretends I can do that) with $66,000 in alimony going to my wife along with $10,000 in annual child support, even though I have our children most of the time. Its all based upon a long-term marriage with income 'inequalities' (I went to school for 18 years, work my ass off and take lots of risk, she is a long-term civil servant).

 

The lawyers admit that its a cracked system (while laughing all the way to the bank) and that our economic lives as a married couple makes me 'ground zero' for financial devastation.

 

But the bottom line is that, unless I want to be a criminal, I will pay. So my choice is to be a slave or a scofflaw. Some choice.

 

Raoul