Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line

[murphyslaw]

Still think that divorce and family law should be taught in high school.So many people get involved when they are young and naive and get bled dry.Abuse in relationship for both men and women should be taught too.At least give future generations a fighting chance of avoiding misery.

[caranna]

Still think that divorce and family law should be taught in high school.So many people get involved when they are young and naive and get bled dry.Abuse in relationship for both men and women should be taught too.At least give future generations a fighting chance of avoiding misery.

I hate to sound cynical here, but my to be ex barely finished grade 8, so it wouldn't have benefited him.

[Unevenplayingground]

I hate to sound cynical here, but my to be ex barely finished grade 8, so it wouldn't have benefited him.

Well maybe they should start in elementary school, they are having babies pretty early these days...

In all seriousness, it actually is an excellent idea to educate our children in school.

[Unevenplayingground]

Massachusetts Family law is already being discussed by MPs in Canada. Massachusetts until recently had a draconian approach to Family law and there was a huge backlash which prompted reform, so the law changed , I think only last year. It brings certainty and less subjectivity to divorce which is a good thing.

I looked it up, seems like there have been some really good decisions made. I only skimmed but it looks like they cleaned up a lot of the "grey" areas. Would be nice to see the grey cleaned up in Canada, in all areas.

[Tayken]

I hate to sound cynical here, but my to be ex barely finished grade 8, so it wouldn't have benefited him.

I hate to sound cynical here but, you married someone with a grade 8 education...

[caranna]

I hate to sound cynical here but, you married someone with a grade 8 education...

Yes, that's true and I loved him. Love can be blind and I was in denial about his abuse for decades. He was actually a successful businessman believe it or not.

Now I'm no longer in denial mode, I've gained a tremendous amount of self awareness and respect and have met some wonderful people along the way.

[Tayken]

Yes, that's true and I loved him. Love can be blind and I was in denial about his abuse for decades. He was actually a successful businessman believe it or not.

Intimate partner abuse can never be part of a good relationship. When fear, intimidation, and cruelty are present in a relationship, can you really call that love?

Love didn't make you blind:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...ove-isnt-blind

Now I'm no longer in denial mode, I've gained a tremendous amount of self awareness and respect and have met some wonderful people along the way.

Denial of what?

[caranna]

Yes I was in denial. I have indeed made life changes, and have emerged with more peace and fulfillment that I ever thought possible. It's a long story, but the essence is that I now have a much closer relationship with God.

I now have the peace that passes all understanding, no matter what the circumstances, and I thank my God for that. Sure, it can be painful at times, and there can be difficult times, but I know God is guiding me and teaching me through all these experiences.

Dinner's waiting...

All the best.

[JB514]

Read the whole thread! Took a while, but here is my view on the (GENERAL)situation.
In regards to SS:
PRO- SS, stated that they have sacrificed multiple years to stay home while the other pursued his career. So why should they be left penniless? They feel entitlement, since the ex is now SUCCESSFUL. So my point is... if the ex is successful, that means he was financially taking care of the whole family during marriage, everything purchased for the family was purchased by his hard earned money, but during the divorce, by law, all assets are split. ISN'T IT enough? How is the other person left penniless because of the marriage break up????

That is where a major flaw with the system lays. By having the Law that allows the party that did not purchase the house, cars, furniture (because they stayed home and brought in no income) benefit from the above (which is fair), but then double dipping and asking for compensation for lost income potential.

In regards to CS:

Do I think that children need support? ABSOLUTELY!!! However, the amounts at the average and above average income are unreasonable. The amount that I pay for my D15 (whom I have not seen in few years and not by my choice: my court order states "access as per child's wishes" at the age of 8???) is not huge by any means, but I have a 2 y.o. now and we do not spend more than $100 on him unless we buy him clothing every single month. He eats what we eat so food wise 20 extra macaronis, half a chicken breast, etc. will not run us even that $100 unless we feed him caviar and lobsters ; )

As far as for shelter, would my ex be homeless if she did not have our D? No. She would have lived in the same bsmt apptmt that has a tiny 1 bedroom, but she has 2 kids. She could afford more, but she is superficial and would rather do gel nail (and got my D to doing them at 13 too!) tan excessively, go regularly to full body treatments, hair appointment, brand name clothing, etc...you get my point. So do I feel that the money goes strictly to support my D. NO WAY!

I actually left her because of the frivolous behavior ^ while I straggled to start a new business. So when I left, I had to file for bankruptcy.

So to sum this up.... I would feel MUCH better if at least 50% went into savings account for my D, the other half would be sufficient to support my D. At least at the age of 18 my D would have some start up money instead of brand name clothing that is too small to even wear.

Disclaimer ; )- I do realize that everyone's situation is different and one size does not fit all.

[JB514]

oops, double posted ; (

[elizabethpublicover]

lobby your MP ..it's the only way for reform. We should organise a day of protest and deliver Parliament with an alternative ..the Massachusetts law would be a vast improvement, but pre-marital education would be also be good although unlikely to happen. Men should realise that allowing women to leave their jobs will crucify them financially ..paying for 2 nannies would be cheaper in the long run than allowing your spouse to quit her job.

[momforever1956]

The law is not gender specific. I have a friend who is a medical professional and her husband is not employed. He left her, not what she wanted and basically begged him to stay. She is paying him support.
Every case is different but one must take ownership for their decision. If a man doesn't want his wife to be a stay at home mother then it shouldn't take 29 years and a divorce for him to figure it out.
My x now says this is not what he wanted and basically was laughed at by all the legal professionals involved. This attitude not only worked against him for SS but also granted me to work without any effect on my SS, such that I can earn as much as I can without any consequence to my SS.
WE made a decision 29 years ago, and HE benifited as much as I did from that choice.

[arabian]

^tired of hearing this jargon - enough already. Pay your spouse a salary for staying home with the kids.

[arabian]

My last remark was supposed to be in response to the one before yours momforever1956!

[momforever1956]

My last remark was supposed to be in response to the one before yours momforever1956!

I got that loud and clear, Arabian, LOL.

Just the same, over and over about how women spend their CS and SS. The question I ask is , "How did you marry a woman who is so shallow and irresponsible, who is so self engrossed and then you allowed her to have your child? What were you thinking?"

We make choices and are responsible for those choices. Time we grow up and become adults and deal with the consequences.