Why Do Divorce Laws Marginalize Men?

You're a bit touchy on this subject aren't you.

Yes, I read your f'n posts. No, you did not make your opinions all that clear, that's why I asked you a question. But if I irritate you so much, feel free to ignore me.

This much is clear, your remedy to greedy women is a bit harsh,

For asking for more than what you think is reasonable, she should be burned at the stake Gee, then the non custodial parent has to take full responsibility for the kiddies, or is that your goal, kill her off & get the kids?

And what is your suggested corresponding punishment for non custodial parents who ask to pay less than what they should? Should they be set on fire as well? We could round them up & have bonfires in every town. But then, they couldn't be forced to pay anything after death.

We should have a lesser penalty for the ones who complain about paying even though they pay, hmmm, how about just burning a single body part off? I'll let you choose the part.

And there ought to be an even harsher punishment for those who don't pay, because that is worse than asking for a low child support obligation, but I'm not sure what that would be, since we already used up BURNED AT THE STAKE.

As for alimony & "the whole 1/2 deal", what percentage of divorced actually get alimony these days? Since so many women are self supporting now, I rarely hear of anyone getting alimony, so I wonder what your problem is. And what do you mean by the "whole 1/2 deal"? Are you referring to community property state laws? If that's your problem, work to get those laws changed, and don't marry if you live in one of those states. But with so many women working and contributing financially to the family, why wouldn't they be given half?

And what monthly amount in your opinion is sufficient to support a child? We can agree 50K is excessive, but what's the minimum needed? What's more than necessary? What limits should be put on a childs needs if the non custodial parent is wealthy?

I wonder, are you paying alimony yourself, or did you have to split your assets by 1/2? Or are you just pissed off in general about women?

 

Or have you seen the devastation that divorce laws, courts and ex-wives can have on a father and his children

 

Afraid I don't have many data points for this one. I do have a couple of personal examples:

My original sous-chef was picked up by the feds one morning, never to be seen again. Through his wife, I was led to understand that he was "confused" by the Michigan laws, as NJ laws allowed him to "only pay" $20 a week in child support, and he was paying that amount - in violation of MI law. I have no idea whether this was all b.s., or not.

However, what was salient about the episode, for me, was this: the scumbag was actually trying to tell me that I should buy his story, on the legal basis, and he couldn't even see how vile a human being he was to pay a measly $80 per month in child support. What I told his wife was it was his believing that $80 per month was enough to contribute to the care of his 12 year old child, while he was buying a home in our area, partying, etc., that meant he was no longer in my employ, whatever happened with the legal fallout. My kitchen was a crew of stand up people; I didn't want this guy back.

In my own example, my dad left when I was a year or so old - and didn't pay crap. My mom had to work to sustain her 4 sons while my pa was living the high life in San Mateo.

I know many fathers and ex-husbands get reamed.

I know, too, that many scumbags attempt all too often to avoid their responsibility, and I find that as reprehensible as it gets.

 

No, not really. I'm sure it happens. It's a shame we can't come up with a system that is completely fair. But my personal experience tells me it's women who get financially devastated far more often.

I'm curious. Have any of the posters on this thread been treated unfairly by the courts? I'm willing to listen to the details if you want to share.

 

I've also heard that song by Kanye West (Now I ain't sayin she's a gold digger, but she ain't messin with no broke broke broke..)

 

If a court believes a man should pay $50k in child support MONTHLY then it should be a no brainer that custody should go to the person who can AFFORD to pay $50k monthly.

 

So you think custody should be resolved on the single issue of wealth?

No reason to consider the type of parents both Mom & Dad have been so far? Or time spent with the child? Or amount of time available to spend with the child in the future? Or location, proximity to other close relatives? etc, etc.

I thought it was a no brainer to consider the best interests of the child, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each case.

 

My uncle and aunt had two kids together, one boy and one girl. They divorced when my cousins were 6 (the boy) and 3 years old.

The court gave full custody to the mother and was awarded somewhere around (maybe a little less or more) 50% of every dollar he made. He was allowed to see his kids 2 days a week.

He could barely make his house payment and couldn't afford to take his kids out when he had them. They disliked him for it (being kids and not knowing better) and the entire time their mother was feeding them BS about how terrible their father was. Meanwhile she was living in a brand new house with a new guy, and taking vacations on his money every year.

 

If a woman needs $50k a month in support to take care of a kid there's more likely to be a problem with her than the man providing it.

But let's address your points.

- type of parents both Mom & Dad have been so far - Unless either was abusive I don't see the point. That gets into the whole "what is good parenting" debate. Who's to say the way one person raises their kid is any better than the way another person does so long as the kid turns out to be a well adjusted member of society. Some people argue that raising their kids to be competitive in sports is bad parenting because it teaches them that winning is everything.

- Or time spent with the child - If the man can provide a loving cared for environment, I'm sorry but the amount of time the parent physically spends with the kid cannot be proven to be a detriment to the man's ability to raise the child. Especially one with $50k per month to spend to that affect.

- Or amount of time available to spend with the child in the future? - The courts are predicting the future now?

- location, proximity to other close relatives? - Parents who don't live close to relatives are bad parents?

 

IMO, custody should be based on who has the ability to best provide for the child and not on whether grandma or aunt Gertrude lives 10 minutes away.

For the sake of argument and irrespective of community property laws, alimony etc, lets say the man makes a million a year. The wife chooses to do nothing but live on her husbands earnings. They divorce and now the wife needs to work 2 jobs to make ends meet. Who do you think would have more time, resources etc to provide for the child(ren).

Too often, the courts appear to award custody based soley on the sex of the parent. Where is it written that a women is a better parent or better provider simply because she is a woman?

 

The woman, who's now partying on the half million a year her ex-husband has been forced to pay her after being awarded full custody.

 

It's clear no one should have to pay 50% of their income in child support. Totally unfair.

 

Yes, I've seen it destroy far too many good men.

I think, not. It's treating your children as a dependent (because they are), and treating your ex-wife as an 'independent' woman (if she choses to be called that). If women want to independent individuals, they need to pay their own bills...the children are a different issue of coarse.

Hey, it would be fun....lol.

No, I suggest that the most financially and mentally stable parent get custody (if they wish to) or if circumstance dictates...both get 1/2 custody...taken the kids word in account. If it's deemed the woman, and she doesn't have that much education or so forth, then the man should put in enough money to financially take care of the kid...even if that means a person to take care of the baby/child while the woman's working or getting educated. But not to the point where the girl is 'beating-off', so to speak.

As I wrote, I said a man should pay a reasonable amount, and if he doesn't he should be harshly punished. Funny thing is they made welfare reform in Georgia (I believe), that forced the woman to ask her babies daddy for child support...in order to get welfare. In that case, women weren't put in any effort till they got threatened with the lose of welfare...in which they pursued their babies daddies.

Roughly 15-20% of the people that get married...atleast that's what I remember reading. The 1/2 deal is a matter of how vidictive the poorer person is.

Probably guilt is the reason you don't hear about it. My family is composed of many union workers. Most make damn near six figures, and many of them are divorced with alimony, half, and unreasonably high child support payments [ don't remember the numbers but I remember seeing them].

A few of those divorced women don't work...lazy bitches. They don't even take care of their children that well...they're my cousins, obviously.

From what I heard, if I get a prenup and marry and live in TX, a woman won't get jack shit unless the marriage last over 9 years. I don't have a child, but if a child existed, I'd take care of the child.

Depends on the situation. Reasonable is where both parents are somewhat happy with the results, and the child is not forsaken.

I'm too smart for that. An indentity isn't that hard to change.

Am I pissed off at 'women'....lol. I can't hate women in general, just like I couldn't hate white, black, asian, et al, with blanket comtempt. That wouldn't make sense. I dislike cultures of thought.

 

My thoughts as well. Honestly, as an individual, I've learned far more (valueable/practical things) about life from men than women...and I live in a family full of women.

I should be dead by now....lol.

Although I think (if the circumstance dictates) both should get equal time.

 

Best interest would also include wealth among many other things. Your addressing this to someone else, but I just wanted to put in my cent.

Say a man's financially and mentally good...and he deeply loves his child (with a fairly descent amout of time available for his child)...while his wife is poor and uneducated,....I think the father should get a higher role in raising that child. It just makes sense. PC bs aside.

 

I'm undecided, my ex is a great mother. She likes to spend money, but as long as my daughter is doing cool, money really doesn't mean anything to me.