Pursuinghappiness wrote ..."I would agree that all things being equal. Ie, there is no disruption in career due childbirth/childcare, equal division of childcare/household duties, etc, I would agree with your post. But to apply that rule generally to all cases is far too simplistic.
While I would agree that support laws aren't always fair to circumstance which is very unfortunate. They are not designed to screw men, they're designed to protect children".
First, the laws were not written to protect children, they are written to CYA of government. Just take several hours to read through a few Family Law legislation and that will be come very apparent.
Second, Having children IS a Career choice! I have also taken care of my children since birth - from mid-night feedings to changing diapers. I realize this may not be the norm for the average dad, but it was for me. I also work with many woman who 'take time off' to raise children. I may have lost some income but it has been more than made up for in my relationship with the children. If the TRUE value of that was added to assets at divorce most of those moms demanding assets and support (like you) would be paying their ex;s significant sums. Add this to this the current legislation and Union agreements that guarantee one year of parental leave during which NO loss/reduction/change in employment is allowed to take place, and women (and some men) do not actually put careers on hold at all.
In your argument, putting a career on hold to raise children somehow results some sort of lost future earnings - clearly this is not so in the VAST MAJORITY of cases (99.9%). I could easily attached a reasonable value of $200,000 to spending up to the first year of life as the primary caregiver to a child. PUT that ASSET on your balance sheet and see who gets the house!
While I would agree that support laws aren't always fair to circumstance which is very unfortunate. They are not designed to screw men, they're designed to protect children".
First, the laws were not written to protect children, they are written to CYA of government. Just take several hours to read through a few Family Law legislation and that will be come very apparent.
Second, Having children IS a Career choice! I have also taken care of my children since birth - from mid-night feedings to changing diapers. I realize this may not be the norm for the average dad, but it was for me. I also work with many woman who 'take time off' to raise children. I may have lost some income but it has been more than made up for in my relationship with the children. If the TRUE value of that was added to assets at divorce most of those moms demanding assets and support (like you) would be paying their ex;s significant sums. Add this to this the current legislation and Union agreements that guarantee one year of parental leave during which NO loss/reduction/change in employment is allowed to take place, and women (and some men) do not actually put careers on hold at all.
In your argument, putting a career on hold to raise children somehow results some sort of lost future earnings - clearly this is not so in the VAST MAJORITY of cases (99.9%). I could easily attached a reasonable value of $200,000 to spending up to the first year of life as the primary caregiver to a child. PUT that ASSET on your balance sheet and see who gets the house!
Comment