Let's Debate this - Number 4

[honey I'm home]

Okay guy's here's a good question.

Without going into detail about your own experiences okay. Let's put ourselves on the outside for this one question. Let's say you are asked to put together a general separation agreement. Without looking at what's gone on in the past to YOU, okay... AND NO FINANCIAL requirements - so we won't get into income splitting etc., What do you think should be the general footings of the agreement? and guy's go into a bit of detail as to why you think this should be...(and not just cause A makes more money than B) (or B want's A to pay this that and the other) okay straight up easy to handle stuff.

[Jeff]

Well, this is somewhat dodging your question, but I think what would be best would be to make prenuptial agreements mandatory. Then couples would need to decide for themselves the question you are asking before they got married, and not afterwards.

[privateone]

I think you're dead on Jeff. I suspect most would be in a different sittuation if we all had them done and dusted before hand.

[honey I'm home]

I don't agree with you two... sorry, only cause what about the couples that you know that have been together since the year dot. A pre-nup would have been a waste of time for them. One couple I know started dating in high school, we are now all in our late 40's and guess what, they still have that look when they look at each other.

So on that note and something for you to chew on

Wouldn't you be tempting fate by having the pre-nup.

[Decent Dad]

Most pre-nups (especially parts pertaining to custody and access) are not upheld by the courts anyway. But I guess you could fill out a questionairre. Something like:

If you and you're husband/wife split. Would you:

a) share the child fairly, foster the child's relationship with the other parent, encourage extended family contact, and evenly decide on the child's future
b) use the child as a weapon while you vindictively drag your ex through years of court, withholding the children unless considerations are made, discouraging and inhibiting all contact including, but not limited to, the other parent, any extended family, step-children, half-children, step-mothers, etc.

I don't think you are going to get any people picking b) or of they did, actually having a hope in getting married.

Here's an idea: change the friggin laws.

[applepie]

Wouldn't you be tempting fate by having the pre-nup.

Marriage is not the same as it used to be even twenty years ago. People back then were in it for the long haul. Through thick and thin, no matter what. Now people realize that they have a choice, that they don't have to be stuck in an unhappy situation.

I don't think that having a prenup is tempting fate at all but being practical. Sure it is unromantic and may seem like you are preparing for a divorce (so why get married...) but the statistics are against couples these days. It is better to prepare for a rain storm than to cross your fingers and hope it stays sunny.

[sasha1]

Most pre-nups (especially parts pertaining to custody and access) are not upheld by the courts anyway. But I guess you could fill out a questionairre. Something like:

If you and you're husband/wife split. Would you:

a) share the child fairly, foster the child's relationship with the other parent, encourage extended family contact, and evenly decide on the child's future
b) use the child as a weapon while you vindictively drag your ex through years of court, withholding the children unless considerations are made, discouraging and inhibiting all contact including, but not limited to, the other parent, any extended family, step-children, half-children, step-mothers, etc.

I don't think you are going to get any people picking b) or of they did, actually having a hope in getting married.

Here's an idea: change the friggin laws.

DecentDad;
Can I respectfully suggest some counselling to work through your anger issues? Your multiple choice question is short of about 4-5 choices.

I understand you're frustrated with the laws and would like to change them, but seeing things from only one perspective will not accomplish that, and is very destructive as well.

[Decent Dad]

DecentDad;
Can I respectfully suggest some counselling to work through your anger issues? Your multiple choice question is short of about 4-5 choices.

I understand you're frustrated with the laws and would like to change them, but seeing things from only one perspective will not accomplish that, and is very destructive as well.

My questionairre was simple, but really, who is going to answer anything other than rosey and loving replies.

What is required though is a good understanding of the divorce laws and all their prejudices.

My only perspective is that the laws are wrong. That is my only issue and where I'll make my stand. Unfortunately I am still in this meat grinder called THE SYSTEM and that is sucking time away from everything. When that slows down, I'll direct my energy to changing these laws.

Change the laws and 90% of this board would go away.

Finally, you are correct. I am angry. And so should everyone else. How in a country of civilized folks do we have laws that destroy so many people. It is beyond me. In all the articles and reports stating how prevention would have reduced, stopped or helped a situation or person - we so quickly turn a blind eye to people in divorce or fuel the fire. "Take 'em for everything they got!"

Anyway, one of the disadvantages of e-mail, blogs, forums is the mode of communication does not mimic human dialogue. Perhaps we should all meet for beers at a local pub and really think about what would solve this crisis.

[Decent Dad]

DecentDad;
Can I respectfully suggest some counselling to work through your anger issues?

oh... I forgot one thing. I always repeat this funny line (I can't recall the source) and it helps me get through this...

"Why is that everyone has to get counselling to deal with these troublesome people. Why don't the troublesome people get counselling!"

Although this should not surprise me; as with everything in divroce, once again the onus is on the person being screwed to take resonsibility for everything.

[god knows the truth]

I agree--change the flippin laws. How is it that one person can continue things for years longer than necessary(over 5 years) b/c they don't care if they EVER have peace and serenty! As long as they can destroy the other person any way possible--emotionally, financially, time-wise etc. they are happy! It seems destruction of the ex is the main objective on 'some' people's agenda, regardless of who they hurt; it's ridiculous-time to get a life for some exes!!!!!!!!!
Decent Dad, I don't drink but I'll gladly have a pop and help you advocate for an overhaul in THE SYSTEM.

[Decent Dad]

I have tried for years to get closure on my divorce. But as Al Pacino said "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in". In a SYSTEM so designed for the best interests of the children, is it truly in the child's best interest to have one parent destroyed, or worse, pushed and pushed and pushed until they snap. People can only take so much.

I can totally understand people who are selfish, self-centered and feel the world owes them everything. I don't like those people, but I don't attempt to change anyone. But do me a favour, go be bizarro in your own little world. Stop dragging me down.

Sorry... I'm ranting...