Divorce Laws and Child Support

[rockerrockstar]

As a single man I think the divorce laws and child support laws are unfair and may be unconstitutional. I think they are part of the reason marriages are not lasting and could account for the high rate of divorces.

I believe making the wage earner a slave to the ex-wife is unconstitutional. Bad enough the law can take half of your assets do to the 50/50 rule in many states but some will take up to 50% of your future salary too. If you have a wife that does not work you could lose 50% of future income. Some states are starting to change the laws to put limits on Alimony instead of making it life time payments. Every time I hear of a celebrity getting taken by a gold digger I think they should put a cap on child support and alimony.

You don't even need to be married if you have a kid your ex-girlfriend could get 50% of your income for child support payments. Another very scary thing if you ask me. I do believe in support for children but not giving away half your income. There needs to be a cap for child support.

I think people should marry for love. I don't like the fact that it is so risky to get married if you make a lot more then your spouse. Many women don't make much of an income. I make a decent amount. I don't want to risk my future income. The odds of divorce is too high. Just look at the divorce rates. There is too much financially to gain by divorce for gold diggers. If your wife gets board of you she may decide it is time to take half your income and leave. I believe women that normally would not be gold diggers and start out as good wifes could end up going down the same path since the system allows it. They probably feel the are entitled to his income. It is wrong.

Now before people beat up on me too much. This situation can happen to Women that are the main bread winner of their households. The shoe can be on the other foot.

Another thing is that these laws make it harder to move on with your life. You are tied to your ex by obligation.

Worse is in some states your ex can go back to the court and if you get remarried and try to get some of your new wife's income.

If you can't pay the Alimony or Child Support they can put you in jail even if you don't have a job. They can also make you pay even if you can't support yourself after you make the payment.

There is a reason less people are getting married it is the laws. People have seen what divorce has done to others.
I know some guys actually think they should not marry American women because they are taught to take guys to the cleaners in divorce. They think marriage to a foreign raised girl can be safer. This is a sad state this country is in.

We need reform for these laws.

[oyarde]

You are correct that it has lead to lower marriage and children numbers and will continue to do so. The large majority of divorce is driven by women . A young man , in todays world has much too lose . Your choices are to gamble and try it ( odds are against you ) or avoid it . I offer no advice , but the numbers speak a bit .

[thoughtomator]

Any man who marries in America is a fool and had better hope he fell for the right woman, because if he didn't his life is over for all practical purposes.

[donnay]

I agree, it is insane what they do to men. They do this to make the women dependent upon the state, since the state is so good to them to award them so generously. It's actually all done by design. It encourages more divorce which breaks up the family. Also was the reason for all the promoting of feminists groups.

Family courts are unconstitutional and one of the reason I wouldn't get a marriage license.

http://familyrights.us/how_to/trickle-down.jpg

[camp_steveo]

it's cheaper to keep her....lol

[Czolgosz]

I'll leave a limited response on this issue.


This one thing, and considering how many men and children have been fvcked over by this system, is worthy a bloody revolution in and of itself.

[Agorism]

Watch out for California laws in particular. They are the worst.

Once you hit the 10 year mark, the man has to pay PERMANENT spousal support. Before the 10 year mark, they only pay half the length of the marriage. So if you divorce at 8 years, then you pay 4 years support, but if you divorce at 10 years, then you will pay until you die. I'm not talking about child support as that's separate. This is just paying to maintain the former spouse's lifestyle. Also all divorces are no fault now so even if she left you at 10 years, then you still have to pay.

That's why no one divorces early there unless it's really early on. You have to hit the 10 year mark to hit jack pot.

[Gray Seal]

As a solution:

First...get government out of the marriage business.

Second...family law should not be based on marriage. Family law should be based upon parental rights and responsibilities. Parental rights should not be based upon your sex nor on your marriage status. Physical standing, access, and financial responsibility should be equal (unless altered by a voluntary social contract).

These are not easy changes. It is time to overhaul the process. No tweeks will accomplish it. Freedom must be the goal. Ending the large transfer of wealth must end. It seems large transfers of wealth stimulate and attract attorneys.

[Agorism]

Also if you're a wealthier spouse and don't want to lose all your property you owned pre-marriage...

community-property states -- Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin -- don't go to these states.

The other 41 that divide property by the equitable-distribution method.


Read more: http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_400/456b_divorce-states-the-best-and-worst.html#ixzz1p1UA5fIZ

Here's an interesting fact



Also, if your spouse cheated on you, you'll get the last laugh in North Carolina because the state bars alimony to a dependent spouse who has committed adultery!

This surprises me since no fault divorce is basically everywhere.

[CaptUSA]

Yes. Government in the marriage business distorts the incentives. Just like any other enterprise.

While, I'd hate to see a child go without because of a father who doesn't take responsibility, I just as much hate to see the government give an incentive for women to divorce.

In the old days, women stuck it out because they'd be in tough shape on their own. Granted, things could get pretty bad the old way, but have they really gotten any better?

Ideally, the most important part of the "marriage" would be the details of the contract signed between the parties involved. These details would include things like you would normally see in a pre-nup.

[CaptUSA]

Also, if your spouse cheated on you, you'll get the last laugh in North Carolina because the state bars alimony to a dependent spouse who has committed adultery!


So the lesson for you folks in NC... If you feel like your wife may be thinking about leaving you, get one of your better looking friends to sleep with her and get it documented. Hell, I know some of my friends who would even pay me for the opportunity!

[klamath]

Family courts are pretty much F*ed up for sure and not always from the angle of the poor man. California is getting very big into enforcing visitation as a good thing for the child. In the majority of the cases this is true but typical of a system like this they enforce visitation that is harmful for a child. I have a grandson that the courts have bent over backwards to ensure that he has to visit his father. The guy is a violent dirtbag that messes with a 3 year olds mind to get his kicks out of fighting with the Mom. There is nothing redeaming about the guy yet the court insists it is a good thing for the child to visit the SOB.

[Agorism]

Why is it fair that the mom gets primary custody automatically always while the dad has to make payments for them and only get occasionally visitation?

[Agorism]

Funny how male athletes seem to be the most prepared for dealing with this stuff.

Deon Sanders right now has an airtight prenup that his ex is protesting big time, but she signed it.

[kahless]

A marriage will not work and out of wedlock parents with children will not stay together when government regulations provide incentives for one spouse to separate.

What most people do not realize is programs designed to help women, minorities and those on welfare effect all Americans regardless of gender, race, want or need for welfare. Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform policies are a prime example of that. People are fooled since it is called "welfare" when in fact it's policies effect all income brackets for anyone that is divorced or has had children.

The federal government provides monetary incentives to the states, counties and courts whom implement these policies. One could not possibly receive a fair trial when the government stands to benefit from divorce and parents whom are separated.

Even if you have not had a child ALL Americans are now tracked by the federal government through the national employment database should there ever be a need to collect child support as a result of "Welfare reform". Remarkably the military industrial complex again profits from their close relationship with government by providing the information systems in which they hold back payments and charge fees to increase profits.

[phill4paul]

Also if you're a wealthier spouse and don't want to lose all your property you owned pre-marriage...

community-property states -- Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin -- don't go to these states.

The other 41 that divide property by the equitable-distribution method.


Read more: http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_400/456b_divorce-states-the-best-and-worst.html#ixzz1p1UA5fIZ

Here's an interesting fact



This surprises me since no fault divorce is basically everywhere.

In North Carolina the injured party may also sue the person that fools around with the married partner. 'Alienation of affection" law.

Alienation of Affection

The dictionary definition of the word "tort" is "a wrongful act resulting in an injury, loss, or damage, for which the injured party can bring civil action...."


The tort of alienation of affections seeks damages against a third party who "alienates" the affections of one spouse from the other spouse. The lawsuit is usually brought by the innocent spouse against the guilty spouse's lover. An alienation of affections lawsuit, however, can be brought against any third party. For example, one spouse's in-law who advised the other spouse to leave his or her marriage can find themself held liable in an alienation of affections lawsuit. There is a three-year statute of limitations for alienation of affections claims. In other words, the innocent spouse must file his or her claim for alienation of affections within three years of the wrongful act or acts that caused the alienation.

http://www.montylaw.com/north-carolina-family-laws/alienation-of-affection.aspx

[otherone]

I believe that any couple, as a condition of marriage, must observe 40 hours of local divorce court.

[eduardo89]

Why is it fair that the mom gets primary custody automatically always while the dad has to make payments for them and only get occasionally visitation?

It's not. But very rarely will a judge give the dad custody if the child is very young, especially under 5 years of age.

I'm in favor of child support laws, if you have a kid you have the moral obligation to feed, clothe, house and educate them

Alimony is disgusting though. I hope I never get forced uni that slavery, but I would never sign a prenuptial.

[Seraphim]

Neutered men (financially and in their souls) is the perfect condition for tyranny to take over.


Why is it fair that the mom gets primary custody automatically always while the dad has to make payments for them and only get occasionally visitation?

[Czolgosz]

Neutered men (financially and in their souls) is the perfect condition for tyranny to take over.

Or a well motivated soldier to refresh the tree of liberty.

[onlyrp]

As a single man I think the divorce laws and child support laws are unfair and may be unconstitutional. I think they are part of the reason marriages are not lasting and could account for the high rate of divorces.

I believe making the wage earner a slave to the ex-wife is unconstitutional.


It is kind of funny, that if you stay married there is no obligation how much to spend on your wife, but the moment you are divorced, she has guaranteed income.



Bad enough the law can take half of your assets do to the 50/50 rule in many states but some will take up to 50% of your future salary too. If you have a wife that does not work you could lose 50% of future income. Some states are starting to change the laws to put limits on Alimony instead of making it life time payments. Every time I hear of a celebrity getting taken by a gold digger I think they should put a cap on child support and alimony.


All these are very bad laws, but they are not secret and nobody stopped you from learning of them prior to marriage or divorce, so I think these are laws that actually ENCOURAGE staying together and discourage divorce, otherwise no fault divorce or letting single mothers collect benefits would be the ideal. How else does society force parents to take responsibility if people get bailed out for their mistakes?



You don't even need to be married if you have a kid your ex-girlfriend could get 50% of your income for child support payments. Another very scary thing if you ask me. I do believe in support for children but not giving away half your income. There needs to be a cap for child support.


I agree there should be a reasonable gap, there should be a minimum and a maximum. You don't need to get married because your child isn't going to know or care what kind of relationship his parents were in, he's as in need of food and shelter as any other child. Now, if we banned having children unless you are married, you'd not have this problem. If we encouraged abortion, we wouldn't have this problem. But something tells me you have a religious belief against abortion, but don't want the costs that go with birth.



I think people should marry for love.


I don't.



I don't like the fact that it is so risky to get married if you make a lot more then your spouse.


There are documents to prevent that, but they can be nullified by the jury. So it's all about trust. Think the worst, watch your money. I hate to break it to some people here, but when it comes to money, you can't trust anybody.



Many women don't make much of an income. I make a decent amount. I don't want to risk my future income. The odds of divorce is too high.


The odds of divorce are high because nobody discourages it, people get pregnant and want to cover their mistakes, and on top of that, people get married without thinking.



Just look at the divorce rates. There is too much financially to gain by divorce for gold diggers.


It's no secret, so you can learn now and avoid it.



If your wife gets board of you she may decide it is time to take half your income and leave. I believe women that normally would not be gold diggers and start out as good wifes could end up going down the same path since the system allows it. They probably feel the are entitled to his income. It is wrong.


You can convince the jury she's taking advantage of you, see who's more credible.



Now before people beat up on me too much. This situation can happen to Women that are the main bread winner of their households. The shoe can be on the other foot.

Another thing is that these laws make it harder to move on with your life. You are tied to your ex by obligation.


You make it sound like a person should be allowed to drop a baby and walk away, "move on with my life". If you're talking about merely women and relationships, I agree women should not take half of a man's income just by virtue of marriage. I'm not sure what's more liberal, discouraging marriage or encouraging marriage by high penalty divorce.





Worse is in some states your ex can go back to the court and if you get remarried and try to get some of your new wife's income.

If you can't pay the Alimony or Child Support they can put you in jail even if you don't have a job. They can also make you pay even if you can't support yourself after you make the payment.

There is a reason less people are getting married it is the laws. People have seen what divorce has done to others.
I know some guys actually think they should not marry American women because they are taught to take guys to the cleaners in divorce. They think marriage to a foreign raised girl can be safer. This is a sad state this country is in.

We need reform for these laws.

Yes, there's many reasons people are marrying less, and it's a good thing.

[Voluntary Man]

When you marry/cohabitate, buy a duplex, and move your better half into the other half. Make it legal: charge her rent.



Just know, that if she ever sues for divorce/palimony, she will probably still get the house, especially if there are children (she'll get those, too, of course -- particularly if you have an "unlicensed union"), unless you're a judge and she's a poll dancer.

Face it: this Marxist system is rigged against husbands/fathers. I'd say don't marry and don't reproduce, but that's exactly the response the system is designed to produce. Instead, make sure your intended truly believes as you do....then, pre-nup up, just in case.;)

[onlyrp]

Any man who marries in America is a fool and had better hope he fell for the right woman, because if he didn't his life is over for all practical purposes.

I learned since high school I don't want to get married, for many other reasons, but learning of these child support and alimony laws only made my decision more solid. You are correct, it better be the right woman or your life is over.

[eduardo89]

I learned since high school I don't want to get married, for many other reasons, but learning of these child support and alimony laws only made my decision more solid. You are correct, it better be the right woman or your life is over.

That's really sad

[onlyrp]

Why is it fair that the mom gets primary custody automatically always while the dad has to make payments for them and only get occasionally visitation?

to discourage men from having children. It's not fair, but it's the rationale. Automatic custody is assuming both parents are on equal footing too.

[onlyrp]

That's really sad

I'm happy I don't have the problems other people have. I am not rich, but for the time, money and stress I save from not being a father, not fighting divorce, not juggling exes, it's sure as hell worth it.

is it a sad world where marriage isn't for everybody? Maybe, but I learned to live with it, I don't think I'm missing out at all.

[klamath]

I wonder why the "dang shes hot, I'd do her!" aren't always followed up by "but I don't want to take on the responsibility of possible fatherhood, so no thanks!"

[onlyrp]

I wonder why the "dang shes hot, I'd do her!" aren't always followed up by "but I don't want to take on the responsibility of possible fatherhood, so no thanks!"

because you have 2 brains, sometimes one is more powerful.

[eduardo89]

because you have 2 brains, sometimes one is more powerful.

More like sin is easy, accepting responsibility is harder.

[HOLLYWOOD]

LEE MARVIN

[donnay]

I learned since high school I don't want to get married, for many other reasons, but learning of these child support and alimony laws only made my decision more solid. You are correct, it better be the right woman or your life is over.

Single men 'die younger'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1506209.stm

Men who live alone 'are more likely to die young'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1338362/Men-who-live-alone-are-more-likely-to-die-young.html

Why Women Live Longer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-women-live-longer

"Men Without Women": Look Magazine' Offers a Guide to the Unmarried Man
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6564/

[HigherVision]

I wonder why the "dang shes hot, I'd do her!" aren't always followed up by "but I don't want to take on the responsibility of possible fatherhood, so no thanks!"

Out of condoms?

[HigherVision]

Single men 'die younger'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1506209.stm

Men who live alone 'are more likely to die young'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1338362/Men-who-live-alone-are-more-likely-to-die-young.html

Why Women Live Longer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-women-live-longer

"Men Without Women": Look Magazine' Offers a Guide to the Unmarried Man
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6564/

These stats of men who marry living longer are probably from the generation back when people who got married actually stayed married, considering that they're already dead. I bet you in years to come those numbers will look a lot different.

[onlyrp]

These stats of men who marry living longer are probably from the generation back when people who got married actually stayed married, considering that they're already dead. I bet you in years to come those numbers will look a lot different.

They assume marriage means sex and living together, single means living alone and no sex.

[onlyrp]

The research ties in with other studies which discovered the health benefits of being married.

One US study found that men who were married were 70% more likely to engage in physical exercise than widowers, and much less likely to smoke.

Married couples were more likely to eat breakfast and have their health regularly checked.

if those are the main reasons, then I'll be OK.

[Invi]

I don't think gov't should be involved in marriage at all, but given that it is..

Pre-nup.
Pre-nup, pre-nup, pre-nup.

I wonder if it is possible in a pre-nup to waive the ability to pursue child support in the future, on both sides, regardless of who ends up with custody of any future children?

[eduardo89]

I don't think gov't should be involved in marriage at all, but given that it is..

Pre-nup.
Pre-nup, pre-nup, pre-nup.

I wonder if it is possible in a pre-nup to waive the ability to pursue child support in the future, on both sides, regardless of who ends up with custody of any future children?

No real Christian would sign a prenuptial.

And also, you can't waive child support. The child support isn't for you, it's for the child. The child has a moral right to be clothed, fed, housed and educated by his/her parents.

[kahless]

These stats of men who marry living longer are probably from the generation back when people who got married actually stayed married, considering that they're already dead. I bet you in years to come those numbers will look a lot different.

Probably before these notable bills.

1986 "Bradley Amendment", 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c) No forgiveness for child support even if your excuse was due to being held as a POW, in a coma, medically incapacitated or in jail. This is what happens when douchebag basketball stars like Bill Bradley get elected.

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (Welfare Reform Act), "Contract With America". Elimination of marriage as a private institution with Constitutional protection against arbitrary government intrusion. You can thank Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton for that.

[dannno]

No real Christian would sign a prenuptial.


I don't think a real Christian would get married by their government. They would be married by their Priest or whatever.

[Agorism]

I wonder if it is possible in a pre-nup to waive the ability to pursue child support in the future, on both sides, regardless of who ends up with custody of any future children?

No way can you pre-nump no child support, but you might be able to prenup some sort of 50-50 child custody thing?

Who knows.

BTW- with shared child custody, why would one side pay more child support?

[Agorism]

Single men 'die younger'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1506209.stm

Men who live alone 'are more likely to die young'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...die-young.html

Indoor cats live longer too.

[Philhelm]

No real Christian would sign a prenuptial.

And also, you can't waive child support. The child support isn't for you, it's for the child. The child has a moral right to be clothed, fed, housed and educated by his/her parents.

More like the child support is for the mother to use for living expenses so she can shack up with another dude on the ex-man's dime. I've talked to women that get more in child support than I make working full-time. It doesn't take nearly that kind of money to raise a child. One of the women stated that she needed money for a car so she can transport her child to school; that was her rationale for several thousand dollars a month in child support. If the mother is that poor, then why not just let the father have custody of the child?

And no, I've never been married and have no children (And why would an American male in the 21st century take such a huge risk by doing such things with perfidious women?).

[eduardo89]

No way can you pre-nump no child support, but you might be able to prenup some sort of 50-50 child custody thing?

Who knows.

BTW- with shared child custody, why would one side pay more child support?

Don't think you can do that either, because the custody arrangement (in theory) must always be in the best interest of the child. So you can't set terms on your own, a judge in the end decides what they feel is best for the child.


With joint custody, usually there is no child support payments if both parents get equal time with the child. Expenses such as school, insurance, etc are split 50/50.

[tttppp]

When people get divorced, would it kill them to get a job? What entitles them to half of somebody's money?

[eduardo89]

More like the child support is for the mother to use for living expenses so she can shack up with another dude on the ex-man's dime. I've talked to women that get more in child support than I make working full-time. It doesn't take nearly that kind of money to raise a child. One of the women stated that she needed money for a car so she can transport her child to school; that was her rationale for several thousand dollars a month in child support. If the mother is that poor, then why not just let the father have custody of the child?

And no, I've never been married and have no children (And why would an American male in the 21st century take such a huge risk by doing such things with perfidious women?).

Trust me, I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm stuck with child support payments right now which are hugely excessive. How much can a 1 year old spend??

I'm fighting for full custody though, not sure how good my chances are, but all I know I can't let my daughter stay with her crazy bipolar mother.

[eduardo89]

I don't think a real Christian would get married by their government. They would be married by their Priest or whatever.

I agree. I'll never get a civil marriage, mostly because I don't believe that logically even exists.

Doesn't change the fact that prenuptial agreements go completely against the concept of marriage.

[Agorism]

I agree. I'll never get a civil marriage, mostly because I don't believe that logically even exists.

Doesn't change the fact that prenuptial agreements go completely against the concept of marriage.

Why is that?

200 years ago the man got most of the property? Some states to common sharing plans vs other states that do equitable arrangement divorces.

Why not just make your own prenup if you want it a certain way.

[onlyrp]

When people get divorced, would it kill them to get a job? What entitles them to half of somebody's money?

It's called reliance, and in some cases responsibility.

When you're a single mother, to get a job means you have to make enough to cover child care. But if no child, one always resorts to "I wouldn't ever marry you in the first place if I didn't have an assurance I could live on you and sit on my butt"

I totally agree with you that one should get a job and not feed off their ex, but that's just the rationale you'll hear floating around

[Agorism]

Don't think you can do that either, because the custody arrangement (in theory) must always be in the best interest of the child. So you can't set terms on your own, a judge in the end decides what they feel is best for the child.


With joint custody, usually there is no child support payments if both parents get equal time with the child. Expenses such as school, insurance, etc are split 50/50.

Ya of course that is B.S. since it doesn't actually work like that.

The real rule that the mom always gets primary custody and the dad pays child support unless there is mental illness\drugs\abuse\abnormal circumstances.

[eduardo89]

Ya of course that is B.S. since it doesn't actually work like that.

The real rule that the mom always gets primary custody and the dad pays child support unless there is mental illness\drugs\abuse\abnormal circumstances.

That's why I said in theory. 99% of the time that theory isn't followed and automatically the mom gets custody unless she's a drug addict schizophrenic prostitute.

[Czolgosz]

50/50 is in the best interest of everybody. Individual rights and responsibilities are preserved.

[eduardo89]

Why is that?


Because marriage isn't a contract. It's a covenant with God. It's supposed to be a covenant for life, and to be planning what to do if you try and dissolve it is an affront to God.


God intended marriage to be permanent and lasting as long as both spouses are alive. When two Christian people go into a marriage, it should be with the strong belief that divorce is not possible, and it should not even be an option. To have a prenuptial agreement allows for the possibility of divorce.

When God formed Eve from Adam's rib, He was signifying the purpose of a husband-and-wife relationship. The woman is the man's helper, taken from under his protective arm and formed from the same flesh. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Obviously, this means that separating should not even be contemplated. The only reason divorce was ever allowed was because of sin and people refusing to obey God's Word. “Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God had originally intended'” (Matthew 19:8). God never changes, and He despises divorce (Malachi 2:16).

[onlyrp]

Trust me, I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm stuck with child support payments right now which are hugely excessive. How much can a 1 year old spend??

I'm fighting for full custody though, not sure how good my chances are, but all I know I can't let my daughter stay with her crazy bipolar mother.

this is in US or Deutschland?

[Agorism]

Because marriage isn't a contract. It's a covenant with God. It's supposed to be a covenant for life, and to be planning what to do if you try and dissolve it is an affront to God.

Then why do different states have different rules? Is that an affront to God?

You're relying on the state to set your divorce rules, which change from politician to politician on what laws they want.

[eduardo89]

this is in US or Deutschland?

Worse. Socialist Feminist Spain.

[Seraphim]

Yeah mu buddy had a kid when he was 19 and the insane bitch bugged out COMPLETELY. She went totally mental, abandoned them from the get go...came crawling back TO A COURT...and my buddy had to fight TOOTH AND NAIL to get full custody.

He was there from day one. Took care of the child, payed for it all...and STILL had to jump through 4 million hoops to get full custody after the mother went mental on DAY ONE.


Ya of course that is B.S. since it doesn't actually work like that.

The real rule that the mom always gets primary custody and the dad pays child support unless there is mental illness\drugs\abuse\abnormal circumstances.

[eduardo89]

Then why do different states have different rules? Is that an affront to God?

You're relying on the state to set your divorce rules, which change from politician to politician on what laws they want.

The state does not create marriage. I don't believe government should be involved. A government "marriage" is not valid to me as marriage, nor do I believe God sees it as valid. Marriage is a religious matter. It is not a contract, but a covenant between a man, a woman and God.

[onlyrp]

Worse. Socialist Feminist Spain.

is Spain also a 50/50 rule? Also, were you married?

[eduardo89]

Yeah mu buddy had a kid when he was 19 and the insane bitch bugged out COMPLETELY. She went totally mental, abandoned them from the get go...came crawling back TO A COURT...and my buddy had to fight TOOTH AND NAIL to get full custody.

He was there from day one. Took care of the child, payed for it all...and STILL had to jump through 4 million hoops to get full custody after the mother went mental on DAY ONE.

Same here, had my daughter when I was 21...suing for full custody now. Just had an appointment with a psychologist to prepare me for the court's psychological evaluations next month.

[kahless]

Face it: this Marxist system is rigged against husbands/fathers.

Exactly. Much of the US divorce and child support laws are actually derived and modeled directly or exactly from Soviet Communist law. The US child support model for example was derived from Soviet Communist law with the first implementation in this country being the Wisconsin model by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.

It was Thompson's paid consultants that used the Soviet model to develop Wisconsin's welfare reform policy which was later adopted by the federal government and mandated to the states.


Instead, make sure your intended truly believes as you do....then, pre-nup up, just in case.;)

A good idea but useless against if it relates to child support.

[eduardo89]

is Spain also a 50/50 rule? Also, were you married?

Not married. The rule here is that all custody rulings must be 100% in the interest of the child. Sadly, the court system is extremely feminist and usually rules for the mother. The law was recently (about 6 years ago) allowing for joint custody, but I'm not even bothering going down that route because that just wouldn't work. I'm going all in.

[onlyrp]

Not married. The rule here is that all custody rulings must be 100% in the interest of the child. Sadly, the court system is extremely feminist and usually rules for the mother. The law was recently (about 6 years ago) allowing for joint custody, but I'm not even bothering going down that route because that just wouldn't work. I'm going all in.

I understand you don't like prenups, but having a child without marriage isn't exactly a better alternative. Of course, if what you're talking about is merely custody and child support, a prenup wouldnt help, but it's about planning and being careful in this dangerous and unfair world.

[eduardo89]

I understand you don't like prenups, but having a child without marriage isn't exactly a better alternative. Of course, if what you're talking about is merely custody and child support, a prenup wouldnt help, but it's about planning and being careful in this dangerous and unfair world.

It wasn't exactly "the plan" to get a girl pregnant at 20 and be a dad by 21. It was also in my "I guess I'm a Christian, but I'm really just a hypocrite and I don't really care about my sins" days, back when I thought sex and marriage didn't have to go hand in hand.

[klamath]

The court system tends to reward the most ilresponsible partner regardless of gender. It is part of the great movement to burden the responsible to benefit the illrespnsible. I have seen it against both sexes.

[onlyrp]

It wasn't exactly "the plan" to get a girl pregnant at 20 and be a dad by 21. It was also in my "I guess I'm a Christian, but I'm really just a hypocrite and I don't really care about my sins" days, back when I thought sex and marriage didn't have to go hand in hand.

fair enough. I didn't know you were only 22. I hope everybody learns. I DO believe sex and marriage can be separate, and I exercise it, I don't have the custody or money problems that people who didn't plan to have a child have to have, so if that's "very sad", well, so be it.

[eduardo89]

fair enough. I didn't know you were only 22. I hope everybody learns. I DO believe sex and marriage can be separate, and I exercise it, I don't have the custody or money problems that people who didn't plan to have a child have to have, so if that's "very sad", well, so be it.

I didn't say that's sad. I just said I personally would find that anti-marriage worldview to be a bit pessimistic. Obviously the child support, custody, alimony fights are incredibly sad and horrible, but that won't stop me from wanting to get married. Maybe I idolize marriage a little, but I do believe it is one of the greatest gifts God has given us.


Despite all the hardships, fighting, countless thousands in lawyers, stress, etc....I have never for even one second not loved being a father or wish I could go back and change that.

[Agorism]

I didn't say that's sad. I just said I personally would find that anti-marriage worldview to be a bit pessimistic. Obviously the child support, custody, alimony fights are incredibly sad and horrible, but that won't stop me from wanting to get married. Maybe I idolize marriage a little, but I do believe it is one of the greatest gifts God has given us.

That's because people grow old quickly so they end having to move forward with the "system" regardless of whether it is fair or not or even if they know they will get screwed (although props to people who get prenups)

[Enforcer]

No real Christian would sign a prenuptial.

And also, you can't waive child support. The child support isn't for you, it's for the child. The child has a moral right to be clothed, fed, housed and educated by his/her parents.

You could "waive" child support if you gave up your parental rights and your spouse remarried and the next marriage partner adopted your child. You would be seriously lacking in character to consider it.

[eduardo89]

You could "waive" child support if you gave up your parental rights and your spouse remarried and the next marriage partner adopted your child. You would be seriously lacking in character to consider it.

Not sure about the US, but I know in Spain that's impossible. You can't "waive" parental rights. They can, however, be removed by a court in certain circumstances.

The thing is, in Spain and Latin America there are two distinct things.

"Patria potestad" which are parental rights and obligations. Rights include: contact with your child, deciding school, doctor, religion, etc. Obligations include: Feeding, clothing, educating, housing, etc

"Custodia" which is basically custody. The person with custodia is who lives with the child and decides day to day things (what they wear, what they eat that day, etc).

Patria potestad both parents share automatically if the father recognizes the child as his. No parent can lose this, except by judicial solution for things such as severe abuse and abandonment.

Custodia can be shared, but is usually granted to the mother in cases of divorce or separation.

[Voluntary Man]

No real Christian would sign a prenuptial.

I don't believe that anyone should marry with the intent of divorce. However, the harsh reality is that even Christian marriages end in divorce.

If structured properly, and taken seriously by both parties, a pre-nup could serve as an extra guard against divorce: we live in a Marxist culture where the "weaker sex" can be easily led into the temptation to divorce, because the courts treat women so disproportionately favorably.

If an ironclad pre-nup were structure to tilt the scales of justice a little back toward the husband/father, then a marriage might be better able to survive the difficult times without one party being so tempted to bolt when times get tough. After all, isn't the real idea behind a pre-nup to make divorce a less attractive option?

[klamath]

Out of condoms?
I can see who laughed and giggled through sex ed and didn't pay attention to failure rates of different birth control. To this day none are 100% effective.
Part of the problem is too many men think that if they take that less than 100% effective precaution, then they are resolved of any responsibility for their actions.
Wrong.

[eduardo89]

I don't believe that anyone should marry with the intent of divorce. However, the harsh reality is that even Christian marriages end in divorce.

If structured properly, and taken seriously by both parties, a pre-nup could serve as an extra guard against divorce: we live in a Marxist culture where the "weaker sex" can be easily led into the temptation to divorce, because the courts treat women so disproportionately favorably.

If an ironclad pre-nup were structure to tilt the scales of justice a little back toward the husband/father, then a marriage might be better able to survive the difficult times without one party being so tempted to bolt when times get tough. After all, isn't the real idea behind a pre-nup to make divorce a less attractive option?

I complete agree with you, sadly even many Christian marriages end in divorce. But I think there are two big causes to blame:

1) the government take over of marriage. Marriage has lost much of its religious/spiritual significance. Even most Christians apply for a marriage license and that's the one they dissolve when they get divorced. I know that's the case with my parents, they got a civil divorce and now they consider their religious marriage to also be over.

2) A change in culture and lack of faith and respect. I think people don't realize the significance of the covenant of marriage. Most people do not live a Christian marriage. They do not serve one another. Husbands do not love their wives like Christ loved the Church. Wives do not submit to their husbands. Both are selfish partners, they do not serve one another. They give up on marriage too easily. They do not learn to forgive and reconcile.

Personally I do understand the reality of divorce and I do not necessarily reject it outright. I believe there are cases when it can be justified, even being a Catholic I see that. In cases of domestic abuse and violence, I would never tell the abused spouse to stay in that marriage, especially if their life is at risk. However, I don't believe many of the reasons given for divorce are valid, I don't believe adultery is in most cases a valid reason, and I can't stand the "irreconcilable differences" bullshit excuse.

I don't agree with what you say about a prenuptial making divorce less desirable. I think it facilitates it. In the case of a richer spouse will have less incentive to make sure the marriage works because they won't lose much. I think it always tips the scales in favor of one spouse.

That said, I do agree completely that current law is horrible. It does favor the woman immensely. I think the only solution to that is government simply getting out of the marriage business. It would also, I strongly believe, lead to less divorce.

[eduardo89]

I can see who laughed and giggled through sex ed and didn't pay attention to failure rates of different birth control. To this day none are 100% effective.
Part of the problem is too many men think that if they take that less than 100% effective precaution, then they are resolved of any responsibility for their actions.
Wrong.

Abstinence is 100% 99.999999999999% effective.

[Seraphim]

Tell that to Mary, bitch!!!

lol :p


Abstinence is 100% effective.

[Agorism]

What if we're not Catholic and don't believe in anything superstitious about the "covenant of marriage."

It's just a contract that tends to favor the female.

[otherone]

Abstinence is 100% effective.

Not if you believe in Christ.

[eduardo89]

Not if you believe in Christ.

Yeah I was about to edit my post

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000220147/polls_abstinence_thumb_3519_79595_answer_1_xlarge. jpeg

[eduardo89]

What if we're not Catholic and don't believe in anything superstitious about the "covenant of marriage."

It's just a contract that tends to favor the female.

If you're a Christian and believe in the Bible then marriage is not a contract.

[onlyrp]

You could "waive" child support if you gave up your parental rights and your spouse remarried and the next marriage partner adopted your child. You would be seriously lacking in character to consider it.

Or the recieving/custodian parent can be nice enough to waive recieving child support if they want. For some people, it's sadly, and realistically, the best option. I know a person who couldn't see his child because she wouldn't let him, probably not purposely, but just not keeping him in mind and moving whereever she likes, none of that disqualifies her from recieving or gets him off the hook. She claims (which I heard from him, may be inaccurate) , that she's only told to be hostile to him so that he'd have a hard to paying child support, and claiming custody later.

I asked him "Ok, so what are you getting now? Why don't you just sign away your visitation and custody and you'll pay nothing?" He didn't even think of it for a minute. WHich would be fine if he intends to pay, but he complains and he's spending most of his time hiding and running. Running from paying and not being able to see your child, so why not just say goodbye to your kid?

[satchelmcqueen]

i agree op. my kids are about to turn 16 and 17. after the divorce (she was a serial cheater, liar) the kids chose to stay with me and also have chose to not see her anymore due to her verbal abuse towards them and the way she treats them. she drug us into court last month and lied about everything in her papers to the court. i proved everything she said was a lie. the kids told the judge they didnt want to see her and told the reasons why. instead of it being thrown out due to her lies and the kids wishes at their age (georgia law says kids after 14 have a choice), me and kids were forced to go to counseling and they were forced to see her last week with a counselor. they still have to go back 2 more times at least. the judge was even rude to my kids for feeling the way they do and belittled them along just like their mom has.

my hands are tied. im out of money and i have no power here. the woman judge has ignored the law and the fact that she lied to get me into court. we are being railroaded and no one cares to do anything about it. after the judge makes her ruling, ill post her name on here. she needs to be outted. ex is even behind on child support to me and it didnt matter to the judge at all. kids even said the judge frowned upon me re marrying as if i did something wrong. i never knew my current wife even existed until way after the divorce as she lived 2 hours away. yet the ex cheated for years and was the town whore from what i discovered and she married the guy she was cheating with and they both stalk my kids at school functions and harass them. not even a cop in this town will stop the harassment unless they make a threat first.

the system is soooooo rigged against a man.

[tttppp]

It's called reliance, and in some cases responsibility.

When you're a single mother, to get a job means you have to make enough to cover child care. But if no child, one always resorts to "I wouldn't ever marry you in the first place if I didn't have an assurance I could live on you and sit on my butt"

I totally agree with you that one should get a job and not feed off their ex, but that's just the rationale you'll hear floating around

The husband (or provider) should use the rational that he had to pay for everything during the marriage, so the wife (or freeloader) should have to pay for half the expenses already incurred.

[John F Kennedy III]

As a single man I think the divorce laws and child support laws are unfair and may be unconstitutional. I think they are part of the reason marriages are not lasting and could account for the high rate of divorces.

I believe making the wage earner a slave to the ex-wife is unconstitutional. Bad enough the law can take half of your assets do to the 50/50 rule in many states but some will take up to 50% of your future salary too. If you have a wife that does not work you could lose 50% of future income. Some states are starting to change the laws to put limits on Alimony instead of making it life time payments. Every time I hear of a celebrity getting taken by a gold digger I think they should put a cap on child support and alimony.

You don't even need to be married if you have a kid your ex-girlfriend could get 50% of your income for child support payments. Another very scary thing if you ask me. I do believe in support for children but not giving away half your income. There needs to be a cap for child support.

I think people should marry for love. I don't like the fact that it is so risky to get married if you make a lot more then your spouse. Many women don't make much of an income. I make a decent amount. I don't want to risk my future income. The odds of divorce is too high. Just look at the divorce rates. There is too much financially to gain by divorce for gold diggers. If your wife gets board of you she may decide it is time to take half your income and leave. I believe women that normally would not be gold diggers and start out as good wifes could end up going down the same path since the system allows it. They probably feel the are entitled to his income. It is wrong.

Now before people beat up on me too much. This situation can happen to Women that are the main bread winner of their households. The shoe can be on the other foot.

Another thing is that these laws make it harder to move on with your life. You are tied to your ex by obligation.

Worse is in some states your ex can go back to the court and if you get remarried and try to get some of your new wife's income.

If you can't pay the Alimony or Child Support they can put you in jail even if you don't have a job. They can also make you pay even if you can't support yourself after you make the payment.

There is a reason less people are getting married it is the laws. People have seen what divorce has done to others.
I know some guys actually think they should not marry American women because they are taught to take guys to the cleaners in divorce. They think marriage to a foreign raised girl can be safer. This is a sad state this country is in.

We need reform for these laws.

I completely and utterly agree with every word of this post. We need to massively overhaul our divorce system.

We need to massively overhaul our (insert here).....we are so fucked.

Welcome to Amerika, go fuck yourself.

[oyarde]

Watch out for California laws in particular. They are the worst.

Once you hit the 10 year mark, the man has to pay PERMANENT spousal support. Before the 10 year mark, they only pay half the length of the marriage. So if you divorce at 8 years, then you pay 4 years support, but if you divorce at 10 years, then you will pay until you die. I'm not talking about child support as that's separate. This is just paying to maintain the former spouse's lifestyle. Also all divorces are no fault now so even if she left you at 10 years, then you still have to pay.

That's why no one divorces early there unless it's really early on. You have to hit the 10 year mark to hit jack pot. Who would live in California ? Hell , if California came into the modern world of law , what would the French Foriegn Legion do ?

[oyarde]

Also if you're a wealthier spouse and don't want to lose all your property you owned pre-marriage...

community-property states -- Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin -- don't go to these states.

The other 41 that divide property by the equitable-distribution method.


Read more: http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_400/456b_divorce-states-the-best-and-worst.html#ixzz1p1UA5fIZ

Here's an interesting fact



This surprises me since no fault divorce is basically everywhere. California & Wisconsin were already "community property " states , the unions own them...

[oyarde]

Probably before these notable bills.

1986 "Bradley Amendment", 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c) No forgiveness for child support even if your excuse was due to being held as a POW, in a coma, medically incapacitated or in jail. This is what happens when douchebag basketball stars like Bill Bradley get elected.

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (Welfare Reform Act), "Contract With America". Elimination of marriage as a private institution with Constitutional protection against arbitrary government intrusion. You can thank Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton for that. One of the most blaring examples of severe retardation ever , in the history of the mentally incompetent . OK , guy is working , probably not making quite enough ( do not believe me , look at avg , median Us income ) , does not pay , all of his "support" ( translation = car or house payment for mother ) , guy goes to jail , loses job , how much support is the child getting now ??? I know the answer . Glad , I was always able to pay mine , would have just left the country if I could not have .

[oyarde]

Indoor cats live longer too. Now you tell me .... ;) , no wonder I am so old and tired... I must bring Liberty though to the young and energetic , my Grandchildren is what I think of....

[oyarde]

I can see who laughed and giggled through sex ed and didn't pay attention to failure rates of different birth control. To this day none are 100% effective.
Part of the problem is too many men think that if they take that less than 100% effective precaution, then they are resolved of any responsibility for their actions.
Wrong. I always thought everything was 100 percent effective when i was 20 , I have two beautiful daughters and one of them came about through a couple of kinds of birth control , I am happy about it , My girls , I am most proud of , besides my oldest boy , jury is still out on the other three boys , I did my best , they, will fend for themselves , not sure how gracefully though ...

[onlyrp]

The husband (or provider) should use the rational that he had to pay for everything during the marriage, so the wife (or freeloader) should have to pay for half the expenses already incurred.

in other words, when divorced "give me back my ring and everything you took from me"?

[onlyrp]

I always thought everything was 100 percent effective when i was 20 , I have two beautiful daughters and one of them came about through a couple of kinds of birth control , I am happy about it , My girls , I am most proud of , besides my oldest boy , jury is still out on the other three boys , I did my best , they, will fend for themselves , not sure how gracefully though ...

you have 2 girls and 4 boys?

[onlyrp]

i agree op. my kids are about to turn 16 and 17. after the divorce (she was a serial cheater, liar) the kids chose to stay with me and also have chose to not see her anymore due to her verbal abuse towards them and the way she treats them. she drug us into court last month and lied about everything in her papers to the court. i proved everything she said was a lie. the kids told the judge they didnt want to see her and told the reasons why. instead of it being thrown out due to her lies and the kids wishes at their age (georgia law says kids after 14 have a choice), me and kids were forced to go to counseling and they were forced to see her last week with a counselor. they still have to go back 2 more times at least. the judge was even rude to my kids for feeling the way they do and belittled them along just like their mom has.


Because from their view, why would a child hate their parent who hasn't had a chance to see them? Of course it's because their custodian dad brainwashed, bribed, or threatened them.



my hands are tied. im out of money and i have no power here. the woman judge has ignored the law and the fact that she lied to get me into court. we are being railroaded and no one cares to do anything about it. after the judge makes her ruling, ill post her name on here. she needs to be outted. ex is even behind on child support to me and it didnt matter to the judge at all. kids even said the judge frowned upon me re marrying as if i did something wrong. i never knew my current wife even existed until way after the divorce as she lived 2 hours away. yet the ex cheated for years and was the town whore from what i discovered and she married the guy she was cheating with and they both stalk my kids at school functions and harass them. not even a cop in this town will stop the harassment unless they make a threat first.

the system is soooooo rigged against a man.

what is the most they can do to you and your kids now? Waste your time? They can't force your kids to live with her, and they can't force you to pay anything, right?

[onlyrp]

i agree op. my kids are about to turn 16 and 17. after the divorce (she was a serial cheater, liar) the kids chose to stay with me and also have chose to not see her anymore due to her verbal abuse towards them and the way she treats them. she drug us into court last month and lied about everything in her papers to the court. i proved everything she said was a lie. the kids told the judge they didnt want to see her and told the reasons why. instead of it being thrown out due to her lies and the kids wishes at their age (georgia law says kids after 14 have a choice), me and kids were forced to go to counseling and they were forced to see her last week with a counselor. they still have to go back 2 more times at least. the judge was even rude to my kids for feeling the way they do and belittled them along just like their mom has.

my hands are tied. im out of money and i have no power here. the woman judge has ignored the law and the fact that she lied to get me into court. we are being railroaded and no one cares to do anything about it. after the judge makes her ruling, ill post her name on here. she needs to be outted. ex is even behind on child support to me and it didnt matter to the judge at all. kids even said the judge frowned upon me re marrying as if i did something wrong. i never knew my current wife even existed until way after the divorce as she lived 2 hours away. yet the ex cheated for years and was the town whore from what i discovered and she married the guy she was cheating with and they both stalk my kids at school functions and harass them. not even a cop in this town will stop the harassment unless they make a threat first.

the system is soooooo rigged against a man.

from their view, how can kids not want to see or live with their mother, who has not seen them? Of course it's because their custodian parent brainwashed, bribed or threatened them to say that.

But what's the worst they can do to you now? Waste your time? They can't take the kids away from you, they'll be 18 soon enough, they can't force you to pay anything....right?

[klamath]

i agree op. my kids are about to turn 16 and 17. after the divorce (she was a serial cheater, liar) the kids chose to stay with me and also have chose to not see her anymore due to her verbal abuse towards them and the way she treats them. she drug us into court last month and lied about everything in her papers to the court. i proved everything she said was a lie. the kids told the judge they didnt want to see her and told the reasons why. instead of it being thrown out due to her lies and the kids wishes at their age (georgia law says kids after 14 have a choice), me and kids were forced to go to counseling and they were forced to see her last week with a counselor. they still have to go back 2 more times at least. the judge was even rude to my kids for feeling the way they do and belittled them along just like their mom has.

my hands are tied. im out of money and i have no power here. the woman judge has ignored the law and the fact that she lied to get me into court. we are being railroaded and no one cares to do anything about it. after the judge makes her ruling, ill post her name on here. she needs to be outted. ex is even behind on child support to me and it didnt matter to the judge at all. kids even said the judge frowned upon me re marrying as if i did something wrong. i never knew my current wife even existed until way after the divorce as she lived 2 hours away. yet the ex cheated for years and was the town whore from what i discovered and she married the guy she was cheating with and they both stalk my kids at school functions and harass them. not even a cop in this town will stop the harassment unless they make a threat first.

the system is soooooo rigged against a man.Sorry but it is not just against men. I can tell you a worse story about how my daughter got treated and the court system catered to the dirtbag man. The court system is built around bending over backwards for the unresponsible dirtbags.

[asurfaholic]

Pick the right girl. Date her for a long time before marrying. Good values are a must, and really aren't as uncommon as it seems. You can find these girls in church. Many of them are just longing for a real man to pick them... so you kinda have to have some values too. Go to church, learn about God and learn from his example of how true love works, and how biblical marraiges work. If you do it right, and put your trust in God to find your partner for life, you will be rewarded with a lifetime of faithful love from an adoring spouse. But you have to WORK at it, and be very careful about the decisions you make.

Then the divorce laws wont apply to you.

At work, so sorry if this is too messy of a post.

[kahless]

One of the most blaring examples of severe retardation ever , in the history of the mentally incompetent . OK , guy is working , probably not making quite enough ( do not believe me , look at avg , median Us income ) , does not pay , all of his "support" ( translation = car or house payment for mother ) , guy goes to jail , loses job , how much support is the child getting now ??? I know the answer . Glad , I was always able to pay mine , would have just left the country if I could not have.

I agree, it practically guarantees the person is going to be a deadbeat. Perhaps that was the intention. The more people in the system provides the justification for expanding the programs, the infrastructure and contracts with the private industry whom benefit from each head that is placed into the system. The contracts end up going to military industrial complex companies that have a close relationship already with government.


Glad , I was always able to pay mine , would have just left the country if I could not have.

Welfare Reform figured people may go that route so they added passport revocation for those in arrears. Just makes it a little more difficult to escape.

[oyarde]

I agree, it practically guarantees the person is going to be a deadbeat. Perhaps that was the intention. The more people in the system provides the justification for expanding the programs, the infrastructure and contracts with the private industry whom benefit from each head that is placed into the system. The contracts end up going to military industrial complex companies that have a close relationship already with government.



Welfare Reform figured people may go that route so they added passport revocation for those in arrears. Just makes it a little more difficult to escape. Time to go when it becomes apparent you may become that way , beats jail.

[slamhead]

I have a friend that was on the hook for a child that was not even his. During a time of separation his wife cheated on him. When they divorced, since he stood up and took responsibility for this child, he was on the hook with three different counties as she moved around. He finally had to sue and take custody of this child that had no blood relations to him to stop all the counties from chasing him around.

[oyarde]

I agree, it practically guarantees the person is going to be a deadbeat. Perhaps that was the intention. The more people in the system provides the justification for expanding the programs, the infrastructure and contracts with the private industry whom benefit from each head that is placed into the system. The contracts end up going to military industrial complex companies that have a close relationship already with government.

Welfare Reform figured people may go that route so they added passport revocation for those in arrears. Just makes it a little more difficult to escape. When you can scrape together , only enough for one last payment , buy a plane ticket instead :)

[oyarde]

Pick the right girl. Date her for a long time before marrying. Good values are a must, and really aren't as uncommon as it seems. You can find these girls in church. Many of them are just longing for a real man to pick them... so you kinda have to have some values too. Go to church, learn about God and learn from his example of how true love works, and how biblical marraiges work. If you do it right, and put your trust in God to find your partner for life, you will be rewarded with a lifetime of faithful love from an adoring spouse. But you have to WORK at it, and be very careful about the decisions you make. Then the divorce laws wont apply to you.

At work, so sorry if this is too messy of a post. Sounds like reasonable advice for someone who wants to give it a try.

[tttppp]

in other words, when divorced "give me back my ring and everything you took from me"?

If you want half of the future earnings, you should pay for half of the prior expenses.

[satchelmcqueen]

yep
Sorry but it is not just against men. I can tell you a worse story about how my daughter got treated and the court system catered to the dirtbag man. The court system is built around bending over backwards for the unresponsible dirtbags.

[eduardo89]

Sorry but it is not just against men. I can tell you a worse story about how my daughter got treated and the court system catered to the dirtbag man. The court system is built around bending over backwards for the unresponsible dirtbags.

Hmmm...then my ex is definitely getting custody. Maybe I should stop paying child support, clothe my daughter in paper bags, let her play with old, rusted batteries...

Tonight I went to drop her off and my ex wasn't home. Called her on her cell and it was off, waited an hour and she didn't show up. I guess she'll win the custody battle.

[satchelmcqueen]

pretty much yes. this is what the judge thought before she even spoke to them. forget that she lied to the court or the proof i had to show such. forget that the kids told the judge in private their wishes... forget that the kids saw her for a few months after the divorce and they ended seeing her due to her treatment of them,....i was automatically guilty.

however, after seeing the counselor last week with their mom, the counselor got to see first hand, her argue with them and make up more lies and yell at them rather than say she was sorry or ask for forgiveness. the guy got very ill with her. i think itll be ok now.

however
from their view, how can kids not want to see or live with their mother, who has not seen them? Of course it's because their custodian parent brainwashed, bribed or threatened them to say that.

But what's the worst they can do to you now? Waste your time? They can't take the kids away from you, they'll be 18 soon enough, they can't force you to pay anything....right?

[klamath]

Hmmm...then my ex is definitely getting custody. Maybe I should stop paying child support, clothe my daughter in paper bags, let her play with old, rusted batteries...

Tonight I went to drop her off and my ex wasn't home. Called her on her cell and it was off, waited an hour and she didn't show up. I guess she'll win the custody battle.Hopefully not in spain. Just a month ago a judge ruled against my nephew and his daughter. The mother split when the girl was less than two went on a extended drug and alcohol binge (14 years) never paid child support. Last year the mother had another kid and decided the older daughter would make a great baby sitter. She filled in court for half custody and the mediator looked at her record and refused to grant it. At the trial the mother complained the mediator was bias against her and the judge order immediate new mediation. The new mediator agreed with half custody and the judge ordered it. It is messed up.

[helmuth_hubener]

The State does things horribly. How horribly they do a given thing will tend to increase over time.

They have had a fairly long time being in charge of marriage. And obviously the institution of marriage has deteriorated. Let me go out on a limb and predict that it will continue to deteriorate as long as the state is in charge of it.

[No Free Beer]

Not as easy as you stated.

I agree that the gubmit should get out of the way. The government should only be there to insure the contract is being upheld.

It should be a private matter.

All I am saying is that it isn't as easy as you are making it.

[onlyrp]

the counselor got to see first hand, her argue with them and make up more lies and yell at them rather than say she was sorry or ask for forgiveness. the guy got very ill with her. i think itll be ok now.

however

counselor got ill from patient??

[satchelmcqueen]

yes with the mom.
counselor got ill from patient??

[bolil]

And Ill never get married, until I can marry my dog. Which I don't have yet.