# Limitations on divorce and the father's right movement, does it go too far?



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

I'll admit that I know very little about divorce and even less about the father's rights movement. However last night a political ad was on tv and my wife and I had varying view points on it. 

In our state one of the candidates vying for a position introduced a bill in 2008 that would essentially mean that a woman could only get divorced if she could prove adultery, or physical abuse, or her spouse had abandoned her, or was sentenced to jail. In other words if her husband opposed the divorce and had not done any of those things divorce would not be an option for that woman. 

My viewpoint on it was that its a pretty sexist law. If your wife wants to leave why would you want to force her to stay anyway?

What surprised me was my wife had the exact opposite view point. She felt that there are too many women that jump in and out of marriage frivolously. That people (men and women) don't take marriage seriously anymore. She also pointed out that she has pretty much always advised friends that wanted to divorce their husbands because they didn't love them anymore that they should stay and work on the relationship because at one point they did love him. 

Taken aback by her opinion on this I advised her to keep it to herself, because none of her female friends would understand it. Heck, even I don't really understand it. After all, we don't really know what goes on in someone else's house right? Why should you have to prove something bad is happening to get a divorce?

I'm really interested in what you gentlemen think about this. After giving it a quick google search apparently father's rights are about giving some power back to men in the divorce process. However, I think eradication of no-fault divorce is a bad thing. Thoughts??? Very interested in women's view points as well.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

ReformedHubby said:


> I'll admit that I know very little about divorce and even less about the father's rights movement. However last night a political ad was on tv and my wife and I had varying view points on it.
> 
> In our state one of the candidates vying for a position introduced a bill in 2008 that would essentially mean that a woman could only get divorced if she could prove adultery, or physical abuse, or her spouse had abandoned her, or was sentenced to jail. In other words if her husband opposed the divorce and had not done any of those things divorce would not be an option for that woman.


So this would only apply to women? Men could get a divorce for any reason at all? 



ReformedHubby said:


> My viewpoint on it was that its a pretty sexist law. If your wife wants to leave why would you want to force her to stay anyway?


I agree.


ReformedHubby said:


> What surprised me was my wife had the exact opposite view point. She felt that there are too many women that jump in and out of marriage frivolously.


Does your wife have any idea of what the statistics are for why women divorce? Something like 70% of divorces are filed by women. But that does not mean that its they are filing for frivolous reasons. There was a divorce lawyer who posted here for a while. He said that the idea of the “walk away wife” is mostly a myth. According to him, when women file for divorce it’s usually because of either their spouse’s infidelity and/or abuse.


ReformedHubby said:


> That people (men and women) don't take marriage seriously anymore. She also pointed out that she has pretty much always advised friends that wanted to divorce their husbands because they didn't love them anymore that they should stay and work on the relationship because at one point they did love him.


I agree that people should work on saving their marriage. But I also believe that no one should be making this decision of whether to stay in a marriage for someone else. The only two people who really know what’s going on in the marriage are the two spouses.



ReformedHubby said:


> Taken aback by her opinion on this I advised her to keep it to herself, because none of her female friends would understand it. Heck, even I don't really understand it. After all, we don't really know what goes on in someone else's house right? Why should you have to prove something bad is happening to get a divorce?


Yep. It was like this when I divorced my son’s father. He was very good at picking the times he’d be abusive when no one else was around. 


ReformedHubby said:


> I'm really interested in what you gentlemen think about this. After giving it a quick google search apparently father's rights are about giving some power back to men in the divorce process. However, I think eradication of no-fault divorce is a bad thing. Thoughts??? Very interested in women's view points as well.


So they want to give power to men to force their wife to stay with them? And thus take the power of self-determination away from women?


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Ahh, the good old days when women had to do what they were told and needed their husbands permission for a lot of things. While we're at it, let's just ban birth control, this way we can keep em pregnant and controlled. I often get the feeling a lot of men prefer this.....consider that just because men don't file for divorce as much doesn't mean they're putting anything into the marriage. It often means they don't want to pay for a divorce. My ex fought the divorce tooth and mail but couldn't stand me and had no problem with the fact that I hated his guts. There are people that think like this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

Funny you bring this up, I am going to court today.

Abuse is not only physical but emotional, financial etc.

I think if the argument was that "at fault" divorce findings tilted the judgement into the abused spouses favor.. well sure, I would go for that type of modification. So if there is no "fault" it's 50/50 split or whatever but if there is it's 70/30.

I assume you reside in a um... traditional state?

Unfortunately there are MANY such myths introduced into our society, typically by men who want to hold on to some really old notions of what a marriage really is.

I'm surprised your wife feels this way.

I will tell you that as someone who was in an abusive marriage for 3 years, it takes A LOT to admit this to yourself... and of course you have doubts that you are "overreacting" or some misplaced guilt.

To enforce a law like this.. well it's victimizing those who really need our help.

BTW I don't know what the hell this has to do with fathers rights? Father has a right to abuse his wife.. because that is okay to display to the children? Or forcing a woman to stay in a bad marriage just for the sake of the kids? If that isn't contradictory to psych/MC 101 idk what is.

If fathers really have the BEST interest of the child in mind, they will NOT forget this is their child's mother and needs to be treated with respect. No matter what the situation.

I also think that most courts rule pretty fairly these days.

I have a friend who has 2 kids with his GF and I keep hearing him complain but he refuses to go to court and get formal custody.


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> Ahh, the good old days when women had to do what they were told and needed their husbands permission for a lot of things. While we're at it, let's just ban birth control, this way we can keep em pregnant and controlled. I often get the feeling a lot of men prefer this.....consider that just because men don't file for divorce as much doesn't mean they're putting anything into the marriage. It often means they don't want to pay for a divorce. My ex fought the divorce tooth and mail but couldn't stand me and had no problem with the fact that I hated his guts. There are people that think like this.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

Yup... filed behind my back and hasn't paid me a cent (while stealing money)
I bet he's going to be shocked and surprised (because he can't read state law????) that it's 50/50 + in our state and that you cannot treat people like garbage.


----------



## LonelyinLove (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm not for no divorce, but in some cases it's too easy a solution.

I am all for Fathers rights....men have been screwed over in divorces simply because they are men.

Divorce or no, unless the man is an abuser, children need their fathers.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

LonelyinLove said:


> I'm not for no divorce, but in some cases it's too easy a solution.
> 
> I am all for Fathers rights....men have been screwed over in divorces simply because they are men.
> 
> Divorce or no, unless the man is an abuser, children need their fathers.


The divorce laws we had in the recent past were put in place at a time when women were predominately SAHMs and had little to no chance of supporting themselves. The laws replaced ones that favored men, that allowed me to throw their wife out with nothing financially and without their children.

As society has changed in recent decades the laws are changing. Men now can get 50/50 custody in most, if not all, jurisdictions if they ask for it. It's widely recognized that both parents are needed as long as both are good parents. 

Spousal support and child now goes to the lower earning spouse regardless of their gender. And spousal support is becoming harder and harder to get. Even California is not more and more moving to only rehabilitative spousal support with each spouse being expected to be self sufficient.

There is no need to take rights away from women to make a more fair system. Things are already changing in the right direct.

This idea, to deny women the right to divorce under many circumstances is not about making an even playing field. It's about men wanting to control women.


----------



## Jonathanedgar (Apr 10, 2013)

Values have gone south these days. Marriage is not a joke, you don't throw your family down the drain at every little hurdle life or the marriage brings. You either fight for your marriage or you take the easy means and quit. Marriage is hard and frustrating at times, can try your patience, But at the same time if you make a commitment to a person you should value and honor your word by following through with the same. I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm confused as to why people seem to think that eliminating no-fault divorce would keep abused women in bad marriages. Abuse would be an acceptable reason for divorce.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

ReformedHubby said:


> In our state one of the candidates vying for a position introduced a bill in 2008 that would essentially mean that a woman could only get divorced if she could prove adultery, or physical abuse, or her spouse had abandoned her, or was sentenced to jail.


I live in a fault state NOW and it applies to both men and women. Unless both parties agree to divorce the petitioner must prove fault. 

Had an acquaintance that faced this and it took her 4 years to get a divorce because there was no fault and her husband fought her on it. 

He signed when he got tired of paying legal fees.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

I did do a little bit more research, the proposed law of course did apply to both parties in the marriage. It also did not pass. I guess I am just shocked about how my wife feels about it. I think she is just projecting her disdain for the ILYBINILWY speech onto her opinion. I don't know, I feel bad for people who have to live through that, but would you really want to stay married to someone who no longer loves you?

FYI, Father's rights also covers a lot of different issues, however no fault divorces is one of them.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> I'm confused as to why people seem to think that eliminating no-fault divorce would keep abused women in bad marriages. Abuse would be an acceptable reason for divorce.



I don't like it because "fault" is highly subjective. My ex hb treated me like dogsh!t and when I filed for divorce do you know what he said? "I thought we were in this come h&ll or high water". Translation: I really didn't think it mattered how I treated you because I didn't think you were going anywhere. The concept of forcing someone to remain in a marriage they don't want to be in is ridiculous, and as the OP pointed out who wants to force someone that doesn't want them to stay married? If my hb decides he doesn't want to be married to me he knows where the door is. I'd rather be alone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> The concept of forcing someone to remain in a marriage they don't want to be in is ridiculous, and as the OP pointed out who wants to force someone that doesn't want them to stay married?


If the only factor to be considered is the presence, or absence, of love, then I agree with you.

But, is the fact that your spouse has fallen out of love with you, or gotten bored, or met a more attractive person, sufficient reason to lose your children, and a substantial portion of your assets?


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> If the only factor to be considered is the presence, or absence, of love, then I agree with you.
> 
> But, is the fact that your spouse has fallen out of love with you, or gotten bored, or met a more attractive person, sufficient reason to lose your children, and a substantial portion of your assets?


So you would rather force the continuation of a marriage with a spouse that hates you so you can keep all of your money? Will you then be on TAM complaining about how your spouse won't have sex with you; is that owed as well? And you'd subject your kids to an unhappy marriage for your benefit? Because as a product of a very unhappy marriage I can tell you it doesn't benefit them. Bottom line is that there is no good answer to this and life isn't fair. Think carefully about who you marry and what kind of character they have; obviously this won't avoid everything but it's a start. Men: think about something beyond looks and sex when you pick a wife. Women: think about more then his paycheck when you choose a husband. A forced continuation of a marriage one partner doesn't want could get very nasty, so where will the line be drawn? One good place to start would be to always make sure your spouse is a priority, because how many times have we seen here where one or both spouses neglect the marriage, then can't understand why it's in trouble? Can you imagine if divorce was off the table how some people would treat their spouses? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

This law is essentially the same as abuse (in a way)
In my case/ and many cases I assume my stbxh filed "irreconcilable" differences. I would have filed fault (and could) 
I presume many divorced people file irreconcilable simply as legal strategy.

Personally I believe this is fundamentally a violation of rights. The fact that this law "proves" that pro marriage advocates will stop at nothing to violate peoples rights on the premise of "family" is the biggest BS ever.
If I lived in that state I would not get married esp not legally 

Secondly wth would you do? Not divorce but live apart anyway, that's what.

Two parents with irreconcilable diff is better than 2 happy parents sharing 50:50 custody?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> So you would rather force the continuation of a marriage with a spouse that hates you so you can keep all of your money?


At least that gives the innocent spouse an option. Rewarding a person who blows up a family for frivolous reasons with cash and prizes just doesn't sit well with me.



> Will you then be on TAM complaining about how your spouse won't have sex with you; is that owed as well?


I do subscribe to the radical notion that marriage should be a sexual relationship, yes.



> And you'd subject your kids to an unhappy marriage for your benefit? Because as a product of a very unhappy marriage I can tell you it doesn't benefit then.


Denying children their fathers _does_ benefit them? I disagree.



> Bottom line is that yhere is no good answer to this and life isn't fair. Think carefully about who you marry and what kind of character they have; obviously this won't avoid everything but it's a start.


I agree.



> A forced continuation of a marriage one partner doesn't want could get very nasty, so where will the line be drawn?


Even before no-fault divorces were common, divorce was available to everyone. The difference was that fault was considered. If one spouse is bored, he gets little consideration in terms of support, or child custody. That seems fair.



> Can you imagine if divorce was off the table how some people would treat their spouses?


Well, if they treated their spouses badly, then they could be considered at fault in a divorce. At-fault divorce incentivizes people to behave well in their marriages. If you behave badly, you get the short end of the stick in a divorce. If you behave better than your spouse, you come out on top in a divorce.

It's no-fault divorce that incentivizes people to blow up their families using any frivolous excuse, or none at all.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> At least that gives the innocent spouse an option. Rewarding a person who blows up a family for frivolous reasons with cash and prizes just doesn't sit well with me.
> 
> o
> I do subscribe to the radical notion that marriage should be a sexual relationship, yes.
> ...



Well I can agree that spouses shouldn't be rewarded financially if they blow up marriages for no good reason, the issue is that what constitutes a good reason is somewhat subjective. I see people admitting to bad behavior all the time here and then follow it up with "but not enough end the marriage". In their humble opinion maybe, but their are two partners involved. Once the spouse decides to leave they're all of a sudden interested.
As far a children go, you assume that they will always be with the mother, which is not so. And a divorce doesn't necessarily deny kids their father even when they stay with mom, there's a lot of 50/50 these days, as their should be. Kids are not better off in an unhappy house; I stand by that.
Yes, marriages should be sexual but if you force one to continue with a spouse that doesn't want it does that mean you get to force sex too? Or does that constitute fault? So someone should force themselves to have sex or suffer a financial/child penalty? Doesn't sit right with me. What if a spouse gains 100 lbsa and now disgusts the other spouse? Is sex still an obligation for which you can be penalized? .I'm sure lots of men with fat wives they're not attracted to would love the idea that they can be penalized in a divorce if they don't put out. Or does getting fat constitute fault?
You could write this off as crazy talk but my ex hb treated me like crap, fought the divorce, and told me that I was supppsed to f&ck him when he wanted and pretend like I liked it. He'd tell you he treated me fine though and I blew up the marriage for no good reason. So once again: who gets to decide what constitutes a good reason? When you start with fault open a big can of worms. Some faults are clear, others not so much.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> Well I can agree that spouses shouldn't be rewarded financially if they blow up marriages for no good reason, the issue is that what constitutes a good reason is somewhat subjective. I see people admitting to bad behavior all the time here and then follow it up with "but not enough end the marriage". In their humble opinion maybe, but their are two partners involved. Once the spouse decides to leave they're all of a sudden interested.


I think some ambiguity on the definition of good and bad behavior, to be decided by a judge, is preferable to removing the concept from divorce proceedings, entirely. In our current no-fault environment, I frequently see people advised that, if they can prove that their spouse is addicted to crack, and has gotten their children addicted to crack, and robs banks with their children to pay for the crack, they MIGHT have a chance at winning sole custody. That's because our system is designed to avoid considering behavior in divorces.



> As far a children go, you assume that they will always be with the mother, which is not so.


No, but in 2009, 82% of custodial parent were mothers. Only 18% were fathers. So it's certainly the norm.



> And a divorce doesn't necessarily deny kids their father even when they stay with mom, there's a lot of 50/50 these days, as their should be.


But the 50/50 can be misleading. Many (most?) of those 50/50 custody agreements result in one parent seeing their children every other weekend. And, even if the kids are with each parent exactly 50% of the time, that means each parent is denied access to the children the other 50% of the time. That is a high cost.



> Kids are not better off in an unhappy house; I stand by that.


Studies too numerous to mention have proven that children of divorced parents do worse in school, drop out more often, have sex earlier, get pregnant more often, use drugs and alcohol more often, join gangs more often, are incarcerated more often, and generally do worse in almost every measure of well-being, than children of married parents.



> Yes, marriages should be sexual but if you force one to continue with a spouse that doesn't want it does that mean you get to force sex too? Or does that constitute fault? So someone should force themselves to have sex or suffer a financial/child penalty? Doesn't sit right with me.


Force sex? No. Would withholding sex be a fault for divorce? Yes.



> You could write this off as crazy talk but my ex hb treated me like crap, fought the divorce, and told me that I was supppsed to f&ck him when he wanted and pretend like I liked it. He'd tell you he treated me fine though and I blew up the marriage for good reason. So once again: who gets to decide what constitutes a good reason?


I would say that a judge, or jury, would decide upon fault. Yes, there would certainly be some he said/she said. But, true, long-term mistreatment would almost certainly leave some evidence.

I agree that there are no perfect solutions for dissolving marriages. But, a system meant to reward good behavior and penalize bad behavior seems clearly superior than a system that refuses to account for behavior at all.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> I think some ambiguity on the definition of good and bad behavior, to be decided by a judge, is preferable to removing the concept from divorce proceedings, entirely. In our current no-fault environment, I frequently see people advised that, if they can prove that their spouse is addicted to crack, and has gotten their children addicted to crack, and robs banks with their children to pay for the crack, they MIGHT have a chance at winning sole custody. That's because our system is designed to avoid considering behavior in divorces.
> 
> 
> No, but in 2009, 82% of custodial parent were mothers. Only 18% were fathers. So it's certainly the norm.
> ...



Fair points about an impartial party and rewarding good/penalizing bad behavior, but let's revisit the sex issue. What is witholding sex? No sex, or just not as much a one spouse wants? Spouse wants it every day, so if you don't have sex every day the divorce is your fault? What if I want sex twice a week and that's not enough for hubby? So I can be penalized? What about fat spouse? If your wife gains 100 lbs are you still obligated to put out, or the divorce is your fault? I'm pushing this because I want to know how you would deal with ambiguities like this. If your wife becomes disgusting and you can't get it up, is the divorce your fault? Or I get lazy and stop cleaning (i work full time) is the divorce my fault? Who gets to decide if it's a big enough deal to divorce with fault? Is it fair that a judge, who will have their own opinions, should be able to tell you that your wife is not disgusting or messy enougj and you should've lived with it? How many people would be comfortable with someone else telling them what to live with? People support things until it doesn't benefit them, then they don't.
In my line of work I see statistics gathered, doctored, and presented to support pretty much whatever people want. In my house growing up, my parents HATED each other but stayed "for the kids"; my sisters are both high school dropouts. One has been a drug addict for years, the other has three kids with 2 daddys that don't l pay a dime and have nothing to do with them. I turned out ok buy not because my parents stayed together. I am divorced, my boys see their dad regularly (he doesn't even take them for the time he could) and both are very well adjusted, do well in school, and are great guys. What I've experienced doesn't support these statistics; of course it's always nice if mom and dad can live together in harmony but sometimes they can't. In my experience how kids fair is much more strongly correlated to whether mom and dad can both behave like adults, which has little to do with whether they're married.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> What is witholding sex? No sex, or just not as much a one spouse wants? Spouse wants it every day, so if you don't have sex every day the divorce is your fault? What if I want sex twice a week and that's not enough for hubby? So I can be penalized?


I believe that, back when people used to cite grounds for divorce, one year of one spouse withholding sex was typically used as grounds for arguing abandonment. So one spouse being LD and wanting sex once a week and one spouse being HD and wanting sex daily wouldn't be grounds for divorce.



> What about fat spouse? If your wife gains 100 lbs are you still obligated to put out, or the divorce is your fault? I'm pushing this because I want to know how you would deal with ambiguities like this. If your wife becomes disgusting and you can't get it up, is the divorce your fault? Or I get lazy and stop cleaning (i work full time) is the divorce my fault? Who gets to decide if it's a big enough deal to divorce with fault?


Again, it would be up to a judge and/or jury, within statutes, to determine fault. Unreasonable standards would not be considered as fault. Medical issues leading to celibacy would obviously be considered as mitigating circumstances.



> Is it fair that a judge, who will have their own opinions, should be able to tell you that your wife is not disgusting or messy enougj and you should've lived with it? How many people would be comfortable with someone else telling them what to live with? People support things until it doesn't benefit them, then they don't.


It may not always be fair. But, I would argue that it is more fair to rely on an impartial third party than to give the authority to an unhappy spouse with frivolous grounds for divorce.

Under the current system, a spouse who has grown bored with his/her mate can behave cruelly, have affairs, and file for divorce without any of that bad behavior counting against him/her in deciding on support and custody.



> In my line of work I see statistics gathered, doctored, and presented to support pretty much whatever people want. ... What I've experienced doesn't support these statistics;


I agree that statistics can be skewed. But it's hard to believe that ALL of the studies that show that divorce is detrimental to children have been intentionally skewed.

And, if you understand statistics, then you understand statistical outliers. The fact that children of divorce tend to fare worse than children of marriage doesn't mean that EVERY child of divorce fares worse than ALL children of marriage. Exceptions are always possible. But, the statistical trends are clear.


----------



## MissFroggie (Sep 3, 2013)

ReformedHubby said:


> I'll admit that I know very little about divorce and even less about the father's rights movement. However last night a political ad was on tv and my wife and I had varying view points on it.
> 
> In our state one of the candidates vying for a position introduced a bill in 2008 that would essentially mean that *a woman could only get divorced if she could prove adultery, or physical abuse, or her spouse had abandoned her, or was sentenced to jail.* In other words if her husband opposed the divorce and had not done any of those things divorce would not be an option for that woman.
> 
> ...


First I agree this would have been a sexist law if it only applied to women. If it applies to men seeking divorce too then it is not so sexist but still out-dated before it has even been passed because there is more to abuse than just physical...and proving it is hard either way!

As for your wife's reaction - well that is all credit to you OP! She is fortunate enough to have a relationship where she can not imagine leaving and can't quite see what an abusive relationship can be like! She seems oblivious to the issues some people have in their relationships that would not be covered by this law but would be very good reasons to want to get out. Good on you - you are obviously a good husband and doing things right!


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> I believe that, back when people used to cite grounds for divorce, one year of one spouse withholding sex was typically used as grounds for arguing abandonment. So one spouse being LD and wanting sex once a week and one spouse being HD and wanting sex daily wouldn't be grounds for divorce.
> 
> 
> Again, it would be up to a judge and/or jury, within statutes, to determine fault. Unreasonable standards would not be considered as fault. Medical issues leading to celibacy would obviously be considered as mitigating circumstances.
> ...



I am still uncomfortable with the subjective nature of "fault" divorces. In my view marital assets should be split 50/50, and you get to keep what you brought in. 
I get statistics quite well, and would argue that even if you want to classify my experiences as outliers there's too many unknowns to make a blanket statement that divorce is bad for children. People often behave selfishly and badly during divorce, and children are not happy when parents behave badly. My stepdaughter's parents are obviously divorced and she is PhD pharmacist and currently planning her wedding, because her parents behaved like adults both during and after the divorce.
Regardless, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this without insults and anger. I wish there was more of that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

I still am, and will always be, miffed with the concept of the government being involved in marriage. Where there are minor children involved, yes, guidelines and enforcement to ensure the children have the best outcome possible (a huge topic to itself) but the state weighing in on a religious ceremony? No. If you want a contract with someone go to a lawyer and have a contract written up. Lets stop trying to have our cake and eat it too.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> I believe that, back when people used to cite grounds for divorce, one year of one spouse withholding sex was typically used as grounds for arguing abandonment. So one spouse being LD and wanting sex once a week and one spouse being HD and wanting sex daily wouldn't be grounds for divorce.


How does a person prove that their spouse has denied them sex for a year? There is no way to prove it. The w/h spouse can deny it. Or the spouse accusing the other of w/holding could be lying.



PHTlump said:


> Again, it would be up to a judge and/or jury, within statutes, to determine fault. Unreasonable standards would not be considered as fault. Medical issues leading to celibacy would obviously be considered as mitigating circumstances.


So a person would be forced to live a celibate life if their spouse had medical issues? Some 23 year old man or woman could not decide for themselves that they did not want to live without sex for the next 60/70 years?



PHTlump said:


> It may not always be fair. But, I would argue that it is more fair to rely on an impartial third party than to give the authority to an unhappy spouse with frivolous grounds for divorce.
> 
> Under the current system, a spouse who has grown bored with his/her mate can behave cruelly, have affairs, and file for divorce without any of that bad behavior counting against him/her in deciding on support and custody.


When we had fault divorces, people tied up the courts time accusing each other of things that may or may not be true. It is usually impossible to prove fault, even with abuse, cruelty and infidelity.

On the other side of the coin, couple who both agreed to get divorced use to agree to admit to fault so that they could both get out of the marriage. That is hardly better.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Shoto1984 said:


> I still am, and will always be, miffed with the concept of the government being involved in marriage. Where there are minor children involved, yes, guidelines and enforcement to ensure the children have the best outcome possible (a huge topic to itself) but the state weighing in on a religious ceremony? No. If you want a contract with someone go to a lawyer and have a contract written up. Lets stop trying to have our cake and eat it too.


Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony. It's only been thus in a few societies. I know that it is under Christianity and I think Judaism. But I do not think it is in other religions.

I know it's not a religious ceremony in Islam. 

The state (gov) sets the laws for how our society functions. In countries like the USA the Church does not anymore. So the gov took over that function.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

TAM itself demonstrates why "fault" doesn't work. The variety of opinions about what does or does constitute abuse. And to what level people are expected to endure it, because of marriage vows.

Also - given that it's illegal to hold someone's religious against them, how are you going to account for judges of different religious backgrounds who may inspired to find "fault" more or less strongly based on their own ideas of what marriage is?

And, the state doesn't decree what one's marriage vows are, so why should they get to determine what should or shouldn't be considered breaking them? Does that mean we need a set of state approved vows?


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

I do understand both sides of the argument. I know more than one guy that is living in a much smaller place now but is still paying for the bigger place they shared with their ex wife. The whole 50/50 custody thing doesn't always work the way its supposed to either.

I can honestly say that the men I know that got divorced don't have as much financially but on a personal level they are happier than they were. Being in a loveless relationship sucks all the life out of you. Especially when you didn't do anything to deserve being treated that way.

On a personal note my wife's view point on this is mildly concerning to me. I love her dearly but I would hate to think that if her love for me ever faded she would stay with me for years just pretending and going through the motions.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

ReformedHubby said:


> I do understand both sides of the argument. I know more than one guy that is living in a much smaller place now but is still paying for the bigger place they shared with their ex wife. The whole 50/50 custody thing doesn't always work the way its supposed to either.
> 
> *I can honestly say that the men I know that got divorced don't have as much financially but on a personal level they are happier than they were.* Being in a loveless relationship sucks all the life out of you. Especially when you didn't do anything to deserve being treated that way.
> 
> On a personal note my wife's view point on this is mildly concerning to me. I love her dearly but I would hate to think that if her love for me ever faded she would stay with me for years just pretending and going through the motions.


And neither do the women. Why do men think that they are the only ones to go backwards financially after divorce? The vast majority of men AND women are worse off financially.


----------



## BrockLanders (Jul 23, 2012)

The way out is to opt out of marriage. Why enter into a non-binding contract? It defies logic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Holland said:


> And neither do the women. Why do men think that they are the only ones to go backwards financially after divorce? The vast majority of men AND women are worse off financially.


but are they equally worse off?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Personally I think marriage should be a fixed term contract that can be renewed and reviewed at intervals, to be renegotiated over the years.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BrockLanders said:


> The way out is to opt out of marriage. Why enter into a non-binding contract? It defies logic.


Marriage is not a non-binding contract. It has provisions for either party to end it under certain rules. Most contracts have such provisions. 

Marriage is a lot like forming a company.. corporation, LLC, etc. There are laws that govern how to establish the organization, how it's run and what happens if it's dissolved.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

chillymorn said:


> but are they equally worse off?


Each case is different but yes many are equally worse off, many are much worse off. Women that have stayed at home to raise families or limited their career options due to raising families are in a very precarious position.

Of course men that don't consider their income during marriage as "family" money will never understand this.

The laws (in Aust) do well to provide some equity when it comes to divorce settlements, only a small minority end up in court as most here do their own settlements with or without legal assistance. 
Not understanding the US alimony system, can't comment but from what I read here that does sound odd and unfair in some cases.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

chillymorn said:


> but are they equally worse off?


The effects of divorce upon income are so marked that they are enough to haul men out of poverty while plunging women into it. The incomes of ex-husbands rose by 25 per cent immediately after the split, but women saw a sharp fall in their finances, which rarely regained pre-divorce levels.

Some 27 per cent of women ended up living in poverty as a result – three times the rate of men – and only 31 per cent received maintenance payments from ex-husbands for their children.

Why divorce makes women the poorer sex - Home News - UK - The Independent

Keep in mind that most divorces are between young adults under 30 and the poor. 

The divorce rate for couples over 30 in which the woman has a college degree are 25% or less. The older and more educated a couple the lower the divorce rate.

fewer and fewer states have any spousal support or only short term for marriages under 20 years. 

The idea that men generally are taken to the cleaners during divorce is a myth.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony. It's only been thus in a few societies. I know that it is under Christianity and I think Judaism. But I do not think it is in other religions.
> 
> *I know it's not a religious ceremony in Islam.*
> 
> The state (gov) sets the laws for how our society functions. In countries like the USA the Church does not anymore. So the gov took over that function.


As a Muslim I must say you are totally wrong about this.

Marriage IS a religious ceremony in Islam, and we have a category in our law called fiqh munakahat, religious laws pertaining to religion-sanctioned marriage. 

This page has a good information:



> Islamic Laws Regarding Marriage
> 
> Islam recognizes value of sex and advocates marriage. Islam does not believe in celibacy.
> 
> ...


http://www.islamic-truth.co.uk/islamicstore/pdf_files/laws_marriage.pdf


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> The effects of divorce upon income are so marked that they are enough to haul men out of poverty while plunging women into it. The incomes of ex-husbands rose by 25 per cent immediately after the split, but women saw a sharp fall in their finances, which rarely regained pre-divorce levels.
> 
> *after child support and alimony? I doubt it. *
> 
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

anonim said:


> after child support and alimony? I doubt it.


Most men never pay spousal support. 

Apparently only about 31% of fathers even pay child support.



anonim said:


> This is patently false, most states have alimony or spousal support. Short term spousal support (which is an oxymoron, as the person you are supporting is not your spouse) is exactly how it should be, and should really only be supported for a duration reasonably long enough to find gainful employment. You dont get to live off of someone because you were married to them once.


No it's not an oxymoron. 

Most, if not all, states have revised their alimony laws to pay the lower income spouse (usually the SAH spouse) rehabilitative support to a set period of time. 




anonim said:


> This is patently false, most states have alimony or spousal support. Short term spousal support (which is an oxymoron, as the person you are supporting is not your spouse) is exactly how it should be, and should really only be supported for a duration reasonably long enough to find gainful employment. You dont get to live off of someone because you were married to them once.


If a person spends 20 years being a SAH parent, at the agreement of both spouses, you want to just throw them out on the street as soon as they can find a minimum wage job? 

You don't think that they should have some time to get some job skills so that they can actually support themselves at a level higher than poverty?


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> If a person spends 20 years being a SAH parent, at the agreement of both spouses, you want to just throw them out on the street as soon as they can find a minimum wage job?


:iagree: it would be very cruel to do so.



> You don't think that they should have some time to get some job skills so that they can actually support themselves at a level higher than poverty?


:iagree: logical, yes!


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

BrockLanders said:


> The way out is to opt out of marriage. Why enter into a non-binding contract? It defies logic.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

I think it's cake eating at its worst.
Nobody's forcing anybody to get married.
I am a businessman and no one can get me to sign any contract whose terms of agreement i have misgivings with.
Doesn't matter the monetary value, or benefits of that contract.
If the risk of loosing far outweigh the benefits to be gained , then logically ,
It does not make sense.

Don't have to get married to have sex.
Don't have to get married to have kids.
Don't have to get married to live together.

Just get a lawyer , both people agree on whatever terms and conditions suit them , what consists a breach of contract , develop a formula on how the money and possessions , and any offspring are to be split in case of a breach of contract.
Then sign that agreement.

Simple as that.

Don't think divorce is fair to your gender?
Then be smart ,don't get married.


----------



## Wiltshireman (Jan 23, 2013)

There is certainly a bias against men in the outcomes of divorce settlements.

Whether this is intentional or co incidental are am not so sure of.
Is it down to the higher average earning potential of men or a predisposition to make women the main child care provider?

Of the people that I know who are divorced and have children under 18 in the vast majority where any maintenance is paid it is paid by the father to the mother. I know of only one father who gets any financial support from with ex wife.

N.B. Yes I do know a few “scum bags” who refuse to pay what is due but they do not deserve to be called fathers IMHO.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

EleGirl said:


> The effects of divorce upon income are so marked that they are enough to haul men out of poverty while plunging women into it. The incomes of ex-husbands rose by 25 per cent immediately after the split, but women saw a sharp fall in their finances, which rarely regained pre-divorce levels.
> 
> Some 27 per cent of women ended up living in poverty as a result – three times the rate of men – and only 31 per cent received maintenance payments from ex-husbands for their children.
> 
> ...


propaganda bull me thinks!

just looking a true life experiances and the people I know that are divorced. and I'm not seeing it.

In a case where one spouce truly did deserve divorce ...ie cheating,finanical infidelity,abuse(mental or physical) then I think the partner at fault should not get any suport or any assets.

in cases where people just fall out of love then everything should be devided equally. as far as I stayed at home to raise kids so now I don't have skills then shame on them the made a huge mistake in not keeping up some sort of skill so they can suport themselves not only in case of divorce but also incase of the death or other situations which would put the stay at home partner in finanical jepordy. 

also coustody sholud always be a 50/50 propisition. unless one parent is truly a danger to the kids for whatever reason.


although the courts do seem to be slowly leveling the playing field and things are more equal today than they were say 10/15 years ago.


the moral of the story is everybody needs to be thinking about how will I suport myself if this marriage don't work out.

theres no free ride in life so its best to be responcible.


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony. It's only been thus in a few societies. I know that it is under Christianity and I think Judaism. But I do not think it is in other religions.
> 
> I know it's not a religious ceremony in Islam.
> 
> The state (gov) sets the laws for how our society functions. In countries like the USA the Church does not anymore. So the gov took over that function.


I think you're wrong about marriage being a religious ceremony. I believe most religious capture "marriage" as part of their domain. You "think" Judaism? really? As mentioned, it is a significant ceremony in Islam. It stands to reason that it would be in most all religions as most are looking to add to their flock and child birth from marriage is a good way to achieve that goal.

What you find is the church attempting to influence the state to create laws the mirror the church's point of view. As and American I have a strong resistance to a religious organization of any flavor influencing the state. The government has an understandable role where minor children are concerned but all else should be left to contracts between individuals. If you want to participate in religious ceremonies (or not) and call your relationship with another person a "marriage" that's your choice.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't support any law that would take a person's freedom to end an abusive or otherwise unhealthy marriage. There are reasons for divorce and sometimes its a very intimate personal reason. 

Having said this I think lifetime alimony should be banned and at fault should come back in a limited form. It's absolutely outrageous that a cheating spouse on top of destroying a family actually gets financial support from the ex. 

Given the current laws, I think its financial suicide for somebody to allow their spouse to SAH for years especially when the kids are in school. The longer the non-working spouse stays out of the work force means lesser employability and longer financial support if the marriage goes belly up. 

I would say that the current laws need to be reformed that proven, documented infidelity = No alimony. It should be standard practice that married couples have prenups that have specific language on consequences of infidelity, fraud, abuse, etc.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

Wiltshireman said:


> There is certainly a bias against men in the outcomes of divorce settlements.
> 
> Whether this is intentional or co incidental are am not so sure of.
> Is it down to the higher average earning potential of men or a predisposition to make women the main child care provider?
> ...



I think the reason men get taken to the cleaners is because men just don't want to fight for their rights and take the first bone that their STBX throws at them regardless if it benefits them or not. 

A good friend of mine divorced a few years ago and his ex wife would make stupid unreasonable demands at mediation. She was asking for alimony, almost full custody and child support even though she made double his salary and SHE cheated on him with three guys in one year. Most guys roll over and take the "deal" to make it go away then complain they live in squalor because 3/4 of their paycheck goes to the ex. My friend basically told her to F herself and that he wasn't doing that. He waited a few months and the judge settled it down the center with 50/50 custody, no CS and definately no alimony.

The point is men need to fight for their rights. The law is there, you have to use it to protect yourself. It's also a constant battle until the kids are 18 so don't think once the judge signs the order that everything is done. This is why you need to carefully vet who you get pregnant.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> I am still uncomfortable with the subjective nature of "fault" divorces.


I agree that it's not perfect. But, in the current system, fault is the only way to acknowledge good, or bad, behavior in a divorce. I think incentivizing good behavior and disincentivizing bad behavior is a worthy goal.



> I get statistics quite well, ... My stepdaughter's parents are obviously divorced and she is PhD pharmacist and currently planning her wedding, because her parents behaved like adults both during and after the divorce.


But that's just another anecdote. Researchers have compared thousands of children of divorce to thousands of children of marriage. The children of divorce are worse off by almost every conceivable measure.

Obviously, an individual case could be counter to the general trend. But the trend is significant enough that making divorce a less attractive option is worthwhile.



> Regardless, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this without insults and anger. I wish there was more of that.


Me too.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> propaganda bull me thinks!
> 
> just looking a true life experiances and the people I know that are divorced. and I'm not seeing it.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said except that the spouse who chose to stay at home is at fault for not keeping their skills up. At some point they made that sacrifice for the family. I do think in this case they need more time to get back on their feet. 

I do think that divorce laws were written based on traditional marital roles. If you're a working man supporting a SAHM then for the most part they are applicable.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

I do believe that wronged spouses should be given a right to seek compensation for damages by the other spouse.

This includes damages due to financial fraud and fidelity fraud. 

You cheat, you pay more to the BS in the divorce.


----------



## greenfern (Oct 20, 2012)

Holland said:


> Personally I think marriage should be a fixed term contract that can be renewed and reviewed at intervals, to be renegotiated over the years.


Mexico was looking into this I don't know what happened with it. Something like a trial license for marriage that can be renewed or not.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

EleGirl said:


> How does a person prove that their spouse has denied them sex for a year? There is no way to prove it. The w/h spouse can deny it. Or the spouse accusing the other of w/holding could be lying.


That's true. But that doesn't mean that we should give up the concept of fault all together. Women could lie about emotional abuse. How could they prove that? It's an entirely subjective concept that leaves no marks or scars. But, I assume you would like emotional abuse to be considered in divorce.



> So a person would be forced to live a celibate life if their spouse had medical issues? Some 23 year old man or woman could not decide for themselves that they did not want to live without sex for the next 60/70 years?


Of course not. They would be able to divorce. They just wouldn't be able to cite celibacy as a fault in their partner. Unless you think it's fair to penalize a paraplegic for being impotent.



> When we had fault divorces, people tied up the courts time accusing each other of things that may or may not be true. It is usually impossible to prove fault, even with abuse, cruelty and infidelity.


Yes, and now they tie up the courts' time with frivolous divorces. The courts spend less time on each divorce, but there are so many more of them that more time is spent overall. And many of those divorces harmfully impacts children.

So, no-fault divorce has led to more divorce and more children harmed by divorce. That's hardly a success story.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

ReformedHubby said:


> On a personal note my wife's view point on this is mildly concerning to me. I love her dearly but I would hate to think that if her love for me ever faded she would stay with me for years just pretending and going through the motions.


I have the completely opposite point of view. It would be very concerning to me to think that, if my wife grew bored with me, or thought the neighbor looked better with his shirt off, she would blow up our family. I relish my wife's commitment to me for better, or for worse.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is not a non-binding contract. It has provisions for either party to end it under certain rules. Most contracts have such provisions.


Certain rules? In the USA, marriage can be dissolved at any time, for any reason, by either spouse. How is that binding?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

EleGirl said:


> The idea that men generally are taken to the cleaners during divorce is a myth.


Well, to be fair, post-divorce income studies rarely, or never, consider support payments. If a divorced man earns $50k per year, and his ex-wife earns $30k per year, studies would conclude he is better off.

But, if he pays her $20k per year in support, then their net income situation reverses. He is actually worse off. And net income is really what people care about.


----------



## greenfern (Oct 20, 2012)

Sanity said:


> Given the current laws, I think its financial suicide for somebody to allow their spouse to SAH for years especially when the kids are in school. The longer the non-working spouse stays out of the work force means lesser employability and longer financial support if the marriage goes belly up.


:iagree:

However I hate to see child support lumped in with alimony. If the man is not able to have 50/50 custody (lets say because he works very long hours) then he had to pay a set amount of child support. Almost everyone (usually men) I know who pay child support complains about the amount. Here in Canada the child support is done by tables, it is set automatically by the government based on your income and is intended for the custodial parent to be able to support their children. Its not a "bonus" for the xwife, nor should it be withheld no matter how bad of a wife she was.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sanity said:


> I think the reason men get taken to the cleaners is because men just don't want to fight for their rights and take the first bone that their STBX throws at them regardless if it benefits them or not.


It's true that most men accept mediation, or settle before a judgment is rendered. But, keep in mind that the system is skewed against them. When 82% of mothers are the custodial parents, how hard and how long should a man fight for a 1 in 6 chance at being the custodial parent? Most men would opt to save tens of thousand in legal fees that probably wouldn't result in a favorable decision, anyway.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

I have a friend... 

Wife did not want to work once kids came along. OK.
When kids were in high school and college, husband asked wife to work part time to help pay for college costs and she complained bitterly about being forced to work. Within a short time wife is cheating with a co-worker. Divorce ensuses.... Husband is paying LIFETIME alimony, meaning even after he retires he has to continue to pay alimony. He has no pension so this will come out of his savings. So, upon the divorce everthing gets split 50 / 50 which include assets that were saved for future expenses such as retirement. But the husband has to take from his 50% of retirement assets that were split upon the divorce, and pay it over the rest of his life as alimony... Not fair at all.

And, around here the child support laws are very unfair. There is a doctine that the court uses to favor primary custody going to the mother. There is a formula that the non custodial parent must pay 30 percent of his gross income to the custodial parent for 3 kids. There is no proratoin for the amount of time one parent has custody for. And, if the split is 50/50, the court deems the lower income spouse as the primary parent for purposes of a child support calculation... So here's how it works:

Wife makes $75K per year. Husband makes $80K Per year. 3 Kids are split 50/50. Husband pays wife $24K per year. Husband pays income taxes on the $24K. So effectively this is $35K of the husband's income going to taxes on the CS and CS itself. Husband's effecive income is 45K while wife's effective income is $110K. And remember, the father has 50% custody. And the wife can ask for more child support if she puts the kids in daycare or medical expenses or school expenses. This situation is terrible for the kids and the father, and only good for the ex wife.. And if she cheated she still gets this deal.

The laws should be changed such that:

-- The Default child custody is 50/50. I can't think of hardly any situations where 50/50 is not the best. If one parent is a crappy parent, then the same laws that affect married crappy parents should affect divorced crappy parents.
-- Child support is a tax deduction for the payer
-- Pro Rate child support based on parental income and time spent with each parent.
-- Alimony and spousal support should end at retirement (although a spouse should have a right to a pension that is accruuing during a marriage).

I think the laws today ENCOURAGE divorces becuase one party stands to gain alot while one party stands to lose alot. It's not always a woman that gains. But if the laws elimated the gains that one party could stand to get, then the divorce rates would go way down.


----------



## greenfern (Oct 20, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Well, to be fair, post-divorce income studies rarely, or never, consider support payments. If a divorced man earns $50k per year, and his ex-wife earns $30k per year, studies would conclude he is better off.
> 
> But, if he pays her $20k per year in support, then their net income situation reverses. He is actually worse off. And net income is really what people care about.


If this is child support she is probably still worse off because the 20k goes to support the children. Its not like a bonus on her income. Children cost money so her cost of living is much higher.

If this is alimony then it is a tax deduction to him & an increase in income to her. Net-wise, I guess if he paid 10k a year they would come out the same? I can't imagine a 50k man being told to pay alimony to an xwife making 20k. In the cases I know of where support was paid there was a MUCH bigger wage gap. Or it is as said previously for a very short period of time.


----------



## greenfern (Oct 20, 2012)

Hicks said:


> I have a friend...
> 
> Wife did not want to work once kids came along. OK.
> When kids were in high school and college, husband asked wife to work part time to help pay for college costs and she complained bitterly about being forced to work. Within a short time wife is cheating with a co-worker. Divorce ensuses.... Husband is paying LIFETIME alimony, meaning even after he retires he has to continue to pay alimony. He has no pension so this will come out of his savings. So, upon the divorce everthing gets split 50 / 50 which include assets that were saved for future expenses such as retirement. But the husband has to take from his 50% of retirement assets that were split upon the divorce, and pay it over the rest of his life as alimony... Not fair at all.
> ...


These laws sound very unfair! 30% of his gross income for child support, no matter how much he/she makes? I would fight tooth & nail for 50/50 custody 

I have never even heard of anyone getting lifetime alimony. It may be more common where you are from but it is *very* difficult to get any kind of alimony longer than a year or two here. I agree that is undue hardship on the person paying the alimony. I suppose it probably ends if the x partner gets re-married, that also is a bad motivation for the x to not move on.

ETA I don't think that child support should be a tax deduction for the payer. That means it is taxable for the receiver. I'm not sure what would actually be fair here...maybe it should be half & half taxable to share the burden? Although the receiver would typically be in a lower bracket...hm. I'm not really sure!


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> It would be very concerning to me to think that, if my wife grew bored with me, or thought the neighbor looked better with his shirt off, she would blow up our family.


If you seriously had doubts, and that someone was this frivolous and would divorce you that easily, why would you marry them to begin with? Holding them hostage by law isn't going to make that better.

But that kind of thing is mentioned all the time here on TAM, and divorce is readily offered as the solution for arguably equally frivolous stuff. Feel your sex life is too vanilla? Divorce her. She's not the size 2 she was at 18 when you met her? Divorce her. Its not just the law that needs to change, it's the whole culture surrounding the idea of marriage.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> I can't think of hardly any situations where 50/50 is not the best.


I've just got to ask from an outsider's perspective how does 50/50 custody work when kids are in school? Are they staying at different houses every other night during the school week? Is the time they are in school counted as time with either parent?

(I'm being serious, as I've never personally known divorced parents who shared custody anywhere near that, but more the every other weekend kind of thing.)


----------



## greenfern (Oct 20, 2012)

Starstarfish said:


> I've just got to ask from an outsider's perspective how does 50/50 custody work when kids are in school? Are they staying at different houses every other night during the school week? Is the time they are in school counted as time with either parent?
> 
> (I'm being serious, as I've never personally known divorced parents who shared custody anywhere near that, but more the every other weekend kind of thing.)


Almost everyone in my circle who is divorced does 50/50. Often 1 week on/1 week off, but also for smaller kids (like mine) it is a 2-2-3 split. Basically I get them mon/tue, my x gets wed/thu, and we alternate weekends. It works well for us because all transitions are at school (kids have their backpacks & school stuff with them - one parent drops off & the other picks up), and if we want to set them up in an activity say monday night then the same person always takes them. 

It sounds complicated but it has worked out well for us. The kids adjust pretty quickly and the teachers (unfortunately) are pretty used to different schedules. We both have to make sure we have everything they need so they only need to pack special things on transition days (blanky for example).


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Starstarfish said:


> I've just got to ask from an outsider's perspective how does 50/50 custody work when kids are in school? Are they staying at different houses every other night during the school week? Is the time they are in school counted as time with either parent?
> 
> (I'm being serious, as I've never personally known divorced parents who shared custody anywhere near that, but more the every other weekend kind of thing.)


One week on, one week off?
3 days on / 4 days off rotating weeks?

The every other weekend is convenient, but not the best for the children. The laws should creat an environment where the best choice is for parents to be parents.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

The laws make it such that a parent who gets more custody gets more money. As a result, parents fight for more custody to get more money for themself. That is a horrible result for the children.


----------



## Wiltshireman (Jan 23, 2013)

I am no expert on divorce law and hope never to have to use it but as I understand it.

The UK the system is supposed to be “gender blind” as it can also be applied to same sex couples but it is waited so that;

“the working parent who must arrange childcare will not be preferred to the parent at home”

The division of assets depends on the length of the marriage, the age of the principles and the number of children “of the marriage”. Basically the longer the couple was married, the older they are at the point of divorce and the more children there nearer to a 50 / 50 split of all current and future assets there will be.

Who gets to spend what amount of time with the children is a separate matter with no account taken of whom is at fault unless that fault could endanger the children (abuse, addiction, abandonment etc).

The “(primary) working parent” is unlikely to get a true 50 / 50 split of the children’s time. If they are lucky they will get them every other weekend and say two weeks annual holiday.


So as the law here stands if you are the main bread winner and your spouse is a SAH raising your children then even if the divorce is their “fault” you will still have to give them half of all your money now and in the future including your pension (you can offset some of the future payment by giving them more than half of everything now) and then as you will have to work extra hours so that you can afford to give your EX their money each month you will have fewer nights when the children can come and stay with you (assuming you can afford anywhere big enough to have them stay) meaning you will just have to pay extra maintenance.

As maintenance is paid by the parent who has the children the least to the parent who has them the most this again counts against the “(primary) working parent”. The actual amount paid is set by the government in a set of table taking into account the primary working parents gross earnings, the number of children and the number of nights that those children spend with the (primary) working parent.


This system does ensure the least disruption to the children’s lives given that their parents are divorcing but the “working parent” gets hit both financially and emotionally harder than the SAH both now and in the future.

Have a Guess at the gender of the (primary) working parent in the Vast Majority of UK households.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

Starstarfish said:


> But that kind of thing is mentioned all the time here on TAM, and divorce is readily offered as the solution for arguably equally frivolous stuff. Feel your sex life is too vanilla? Divorce her. She's not the size 2 she was at 18 when you met her? Divorce her. Its not just the law that needs to change, it's the whole culture surrounding the idea of marriage.


My wife would like your post 1000 times. She is just really tired of playing counselor to friends that are complaining about how hard it is to go through a divorce and be a single mom when they decided to get divorced for the wrong reasons. Sometimes I do think she is a bit overbearing and opinionated. She actually stopped talking to one friend that got divorced because she wasn't getting "compliments".

I don't have an issue with my wife's extreme pro-marriage stance. I just think its pointless to waste your life with someone who doesn't want to be there. In the event your wife gave you the dreaded ILYBINILWY speech the proposed law would allow you to keep her until you decided to sign. BUt what've you got really? A woman that doesn't love you and is probably pissed that you won't sign. You can't make them stay. Let em go.


----------



## huebnem (May 8, 2013)

Seeing military divorces all the time I am biased...women are making off with way too much in many of these cases.

I think that laws should be a bit tougher and more fair though...but not depending on male of female.

Again I am biased though...I get angry when a friend spends 12 months getting shot at and loses everything he ever owned and is put into debt...and then the judge finds him at fault.

There are too many easy "faults" that can be applied. Again I think more uniformity and some better attention to details would be REALLY nice. I've also seen too many times where the druggy, abusive mother gets the kids because...well I can't figure that one out yet...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> If you seriously had doubts, and that someone was this frivolous and would divorce you that easily, why would you marry them to begin with?


People change. A person who is loyal at age 20, can very easily become disloyal several decades later. And the fact is that no-fault divorce offers no penalty for disloyal behavior, and actually can incentivize it.



> Holding them hostage by law isn't going to make that better.


At-fault divorce isn't about holding anybody hostage. It's about holding people accountable for their part in a failing marriage. If one spouse divorces out of boredom, why should the other spouse be punished?



> But that kind of thing is mentioned all the time here on TAM, and divorce is readily offered as the solution for arguably equally frivolous stuff. Feel your sex life is too vanilla? Divorce her. She's not the size 2 she was at 18 when you met her? Divorce her. Its not just the law that needs to change, it's the whole culture surrounding the idea of marriage.


I agree. We live in a culture of frivolous divorce. It shouldn't be surprising when divorce is offered as the solution of first resort. Does your wife not put out enough? Divorce. Did your husband raise his voice during your last argument? Divorce. Did you see Eat, Pray, Love? Divorce.

Changing culture involves changing most aspects of a culture, including the law. Improving the law to hold spouses accountable for their behavior would certainly be an improvement over our current environment.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

PHTlump said:


> Certain rules? In the USA, marriage can be dissolved at any time, for any reason, by either spouse. How is that binding?


Actually, it would be better if marriages were a contract instead of a certificate. Every contract I write has an escape clause where either party can end the contract for any reason - AND terms for what happens should you do this all spelled out. There are even terms in there for 'at fault' terminations of the contract and how that is dealt with.


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony. It's only been thus in a few societies. I know that it is under Christianity and I think Judaism. But I do not think it is in other religions.
> 
> I know it's not a religious ceremony in Islam.
> 
> The state (gov) sets the laws for how our society functions. In countries like the USA the Church does not anymore. So the gov took over that function.


It is a religious ceremony in Islam. Most women need a divorce from the court AND "approval divorce" from their husband. Or technically they can't get married to another Muslim man.

When a woman in Islam picks a partner he has to be Muslim (unless they are not practicing cultural norms) HER and HIS history is investigated by the family, and if that works out they get married. Typically they don't date but get engaged right away.. with the ceremony being 6 months or less later.

That is no true for men.

My stbxh is Muslim.


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> People change. A person who is loyal at age 20, can very easily become disloyal several decades later. And the fact is that no-fault divorce offers no penalty for disloyal behavior, and actually can incentivize it.
> 
> 
> At-fault divorce isn't about holding anybody hostage. It's about holding people accountable for their part in a failing marriage. If one spouse divorces out of boredom, why should the other spouse be punished?
> ...


Well in my state there are 2 options- at fault or irreconcilable. BOTH parties have to sign that they have been apart for 2 years, or they don't sign and it is under 2 years they have to wait. You basically have to waive the 2 year rule.

I don't think divorce is as frivolous as you think, and as I said most people use irreconcilable because the fault takes longer/harder to prove AND it has no impact on your actual divorce. So the judge is not looking at an alcoholic and awarding more $ to the "innocent spouse".

The best thing to do would be to have a collaborative divorce when 2 people don't want to stay married.

There is a case in Texas right now that is preventing 2 gay men from getting divorced, since Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage. They were married in a state where gay marriage is legal.
Their SS benefits, taxes etc... all have an impact sooner or later.

As for the court etc.. we all have "our side" of the story.. so a lot of divorce stuff is law strategy.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if someone wants to file for divorce over "eat pray love" or whatever.. I would let them.. because why be married to such a petty person.

If this has come up over fathers rights then I think the focus should really be on the children and making states that still have uneven visitation/custody rights - and finding a way to correct that law.

Forcing 2 people to stay together- that hate each other.. ridiculous.


----------



## bunny23 (May 19, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Well, to be fair, post-divorce income studies rarely, or never, consider support payments. If a divorced man earns $50k per year, and his ex-wife earns $30k per year, studies would conclude he is better off.
> 
> But, if he pays her $20k per year in support, then their net income situation reverses. He is actually worse off. And net income is really what people care about.


I think you are looking at OLD law.

In this case the spouse would probably not get support. States are no longer doing support for a lot of cases.
The income has to be VERY uneven.

In my case... my H makes 120k or so, I used to make 80k. In this case I probably would not get support (although lets say we had a credit card at $5k, maybe he gets that debt)

Now I quit my job 2 years ago due to 2 neurological illnesses and HIM wanting me to quit to go back to school and get a job where I could make similar money but have better job prospects. I trusted him and did it.

As soon as I did I started school, then he refused to help me with school loans (I was working part-time) and I couldn't get financial aid based on his income.

I now have a 2 year gap and make $0 (he has not paid me any support for the last year) my income disparity and the fact that I need to update my skills etc...

Would possibly award me rehabilitative alimony.
Plus what he "stole" from mutual accounts.

So your example does not happen anymore. The courts look at HUGE income disparity, not a small one.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Racer said:


> Actually, it would be better if marriages were a contract instead of a certificate. Every contract I write has an escape clause where either party can end the contract for any reason - AND terms for what happens should you do this all spelled out. There are even terms in there for 'at fault' terminations of the contract and how that is dealt with.


Marriage is a contract. The parties get a certificate that proves that they signed the contract. The terms of the contract are defined by the laws of the state. And there is an escape clause. It's called divorce.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

bunny23 said:


> It is a religious ceremony in Islam. Most women need a divorce from the court AND "approval divorce" from their husband. Or technically they can't get married to another Muslim man.
> 
> When a woman in Islam picks a partner he has to be Muslim (unless they are not practicing cultural norms) HER and HIS history is investigated by the family, and if that works out they get married. Typically they don't date but get engaged right away.. with the ceremony being 6 months or less later.
> 
> ...


Here are a few facts from the Qur'an on divorce proceedings.
*Both men AND women can initiate trial separations , reconciliations and divorce proceedings.
*
_" If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; ..."_

- Qur'an : Surah 4 Verse 128

" If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, God will cause their reconciliation: For God hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things."

- Qur'an : Surah 4 Verse 35


Once the "Talaq" [ Divorce] process is underway, the question of responsibility of maintenance of the wife arises. The Holy Quran points out in Surat al Talaq:

"Let women in iddah [ _period of time it takes for the divorce to be settled , before she can legally remarry , which is 3 menstrual cycles. This is so to avoid paternity questions if she gets pregnant , during that period_.] live in the same style as you [ _husband_ ] live, according to your means. Trouble them not in such a way as to make things difficult for them." (Quran sura 65, aya 6).

Thus the husband's responsibility for the maintenance of his wife and his children by her, pertains not only when they are living with him, but continues in the event of divorce. There are some selfish people who may mistreat their wives and make their lives miserable after pronouncing divorce while they are still in iddah. This is forbidden. A wife must be provided for in the same standard of living as her husband's standard. There is still hope of reconciliation, and even if there is not, the parting must still be honorable. According to the Maliki, Hanifi, Hanbali, and Shafii jurists, it is the duty of the husband to provide financial security and accommodation to the wife during her period of waiting, only if the marriage has been consummated.

However, no maintenance is due to a finally divorced woman, nor is she entitled to any past maintenance except under the Shafii school. In fixing the sum to be paid for maintenance, all the schools lay down the rule that the Qadi (Judge) will exercise his discretion considering the rank and circumstances of both the spouses. This principle is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let the man of means spend according to his means, and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given him. Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him." (Quran sura 65, aya 7).

In the event of pregnancy, the Holy Quran imposes additional responsibility. No separation is permissible until after the child is born. Hence she must be properly maintained. As for the child, its nursing, welfare, and similarly, the care of the mother remains the father’s responsibility. All four jurists agree unanimously on this principle, as it is stated in the Holy Quran:

"Mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years, if the father wishes to complete the term, but he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms." (Quran sura 2, aya 233).

It should be noted that in Islam the wife also has the right to demand of her husband a divorce. However, instead of "Talaq" it is termed "Khul" and in its literal sense it means releasing or removing the dress from the body. This is an appropriate allusion to the verse of the Holy Quran, which says:

_"Women are your garment and you are their garment._" (Quran sura 2, aya 182).

The Maliki jurists define "Khul" as "a divorce by giving something in return. According to the Hanifi, Shafii and Hanbali jurists," it is the end of a marital relationship with consent and with the utterance of the word "Khul".


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

bunny23 said:


> I don't think divorce is as frivolous as you think, ...


Divorce statistics are hard to come by. AARP polled people who divorced in their forties and only 32% listed cheating or abuse as the primary reason they divorced. I doubt any survey could count on people to be honest enough to report boredom or some truly, universally acknowledged frivolous reason as a factor in their divorces.



> ... and as I said most people use irreconcilable because the fault takes longer/harder to prove AND it has no impact on your actual divorce. So the judge is not looking at an alcoholic and awarding more $ to the "innocent spouse".


Right. When it doesn't matter anyway, just go the easier no-fault route.



> The best thing to do would be to have a collaborative divorce when 2 people don't want to stay married.


Yes. But, the at-fault solution to wanting a no-fault divorce is to each admit fault. If both petitioners agree to 50% fault, then we get a no-fault situation where behavior isn't considered.



> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if someone wants to file for divorce over "eat pray love" or whatever.. I would let them.. because why be married to such a petty person.


The subject of at-fault divorce isn't to trap someone in a loveless marriage. It's to avoid rewarding people for blowing up their families. If divorces were harder to attain and less rewarding, there would be fewer divorces.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

bunny23 said:


> I think you are looking at OLD law.
> 
> In this case the spouse would probably not get support. States are no longer doing support for a lot of cases.
> The income has to be VERY uneven.


I acknowledge that spousal support is rarer today than in the past. But child support is ubiquitous. When I wrote about support payments, I meant both.

And yes, the math of my example isn't realistic. But, it's easy. I was just going for a simple example.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> Here are a few facts from the Qur'an on divorce proceedings.
> *Both men AND women can initiate trial separations , reconciliations and divorce proceedings.
> *
> _" If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; ..."_
> ...


:smthumbup:

By Allah, you speak with eloquence of an Ustadz!

To add a note, in my country, Muslim marriages must be registered in Civil Records as well. That's why, we have a special corps of civil servants, called Modin/Penghulu, who does double duties as an Ustadz and Civil Records officer at the same time, conducting the ceremony and register the records. This is to make sure that the marriage are legal for the secular State, and acceptable to the Muslims as well.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

bunny23 said:


> It is a religious ceremony in Islam. Most women need a divorce from the court AND "approval divorce" from their husband. Or technically they can't get married to another Muslim man.
> 
> When a woman in Islam picks a partner he has to be Muslim (unless they are not practicing cultural norms) HER and HIS history is investigated by the family, and if that works out they get married. Typically they don't date but get engaged right away.. with the ceremony being 6 months or less later.
> 
> ...


I did not want to get into a religious discussion on this thread as it would be a huge thread jack.

I am extremely versed in Islam as I've lived in Islamic countries, have many Muslims in my family and I have studied Islam extensively. 

There is a difference in Islamic laws about marriage and the way, for example, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity view marriage. It has to do with the Catholic/Orthodox belief that marriage is a sacrament. Islam does not view marriage in quite the same way. This is the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

> In our state one of the candidates vying for a position introduced a bill in 2008 that would essentially mean that a woman could only get divorced if she could prove adultery, or physical abuse, or her spouse had abandoned her, or was sentenced to jail. In other words if her husband opposed the divorce and had not done any of those things divorce would not be an option for that woman.


Only physical abuse? Physical abuse can be the lesser of four evils when it comes to abuse. Emotional, Financial and Sexual can be even more damaging.

If such a law were passed, I think they'd have a riot on their hands.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> If divorces were harder to attain and less rewarding, there would be fewer divorces.


Isn't that the same mindset we use about drugs? That by making it harder and "less rewarding" people will stop doing it? How's that working out? 

I think a lot of this idea has to do with this mindset that people divorce for "cash and prizes" as if living through a horrible marriage is like Survivor where if you make it long enough you get a big prize. How people then "blow up" their families. I mean, that's all well and good to have that thought, but - is this really where we are at? Telling other people how to conduct their marriages and when is appropriate to end them to make us more comfortable? 

Which isn't this what it all goes back to, the concern/thought that our spouse may divorce us too easily, and thus we need to make laws restricting -everyone- because of our fears? That kind of sounds like the first step to fascism or the Inquisition to me. When you start using the law to dictate morality. 

This makes me uncomfortable, I'm afraid of it, therefore, I should place restrictive laws on everyone to make me feel better.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I did not want to get into a religious discussion on this thread as it would be a huge thread jack.
> 
> I am extremely versed in Islam as I've lived in Islamic countries, have many Muslims in my family and I have studied Islam extensively.
> 
> There is a difference in Islamic laws about marriage and the way, for example, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity view marriage. It has to do with the Catholic/Orthodox belief that marriage is a sacrament. Islam does not view marriage in quite the same way. This is the point I was trying to make.


Ele,
I have to respectfully disagree.
I live in a country with a significant Muslim population. 
My neighbours are Muslim, some of my family are Muslim.
I have also followed Islam for four years , attending Juma at the Masjid on Fridays , observing the fast during the month of Ramadan , celebrating Eid and even paying Zakaat.
The only thing I've never done was the Hajj.
[ Pilgrimage]

Marriage is very sacred in Islam, in fact , long before the actual ceremony there is something called Nikah, where the two people pledge to be faithful to each other before God and society. This is the equivalent of an engagement ceremony in Christianity.

Divorce is frowned upon by God in both the Qur'an and Hadith .

However , people have their own interpretation of these things , both in Christianity and Islam , depending on which side of the fence you are sitting.
But marriage is very sacred in Islam, and holds the same status in Christianity.
Divorce is strongly discouraged.

It is easier to get divorced in Islam, but the Qur'an is very strict on how property is to be divided between husband and wife and how much money has to be paid and by whom.
The Bible however is very silent on separation, divorce , alimony and so forth.


----------



## Boottothehead (Sep 3, 2013)

As far as fathers' rights, my husband filed after his ex basically kidnapped their daughter. He didn't file charges. He acquiesced on alimony and child support and gave away filing tax status. Why? Because he wants his daughter to know that he is a better person than her mother. As a result, he only sees his little girl twice a month, talks to her only when her mother allows him to, and is a financial captive to this woman. If for any reason her payment is late (and it's paid through the courts and the state, not privately), she withholds access to his daughter. But he still is trying to "be the bigger man". Because he's not her mother, though, she can get away with this crap. It's very frustrating.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> Isn't that the same mindset we use about drugs? That by making it harder and "less rewarding" people will stop doing it? How's that working out?


The War on Drugs is working exactly as any rational person could have predicted. It discourages use on the margins. Personally, I'm apathetic regarding drug use. I have no moral problem with drug use. But, I'm not so pro-drugs that I'm willing to risk going to jail to use drugs. If drugs were legal and cheap, I would probably use drugs occasionally. Since they are not, I don't.

It's just basic human behavior to know that making some more difficult and/or less rewarding will discourage some people from doing it.



> I think a lot of this idea has to do with this mindset that people divorce for "cash and prizes" as if living through a horrible marriage is like Survivor where if you make it long enough you get a big prize.


What you seem to be missing is that there are two kinds of people who file for divorce. People who file for legitimate reasons and people who file for frivolous reasons. I don't begrudge anyone who has suffered from a cheating spouse the right to file for divorce. And I think such a loyal spouse should be at an advantage when considering splitting assets and support payments. However, for people who file for divorce for frivolous reasons, I think they should suffer some sort of penalty for blowing up their families.



> Which isn't this what it all goes back to, the concern/thought that our spouse may divorce us too easily, and thus we need to make laws restricting -everyone- because of our fears? That kind of sounds like the first step to fascism or the Inquisition to me. When you start using the law to dictate morality.


Tell me, would you support doing away with any legal penalties for killing one's spouse? If you wouldn't, does that mean that you're afraid that the threat of imprisonment is the only thing keeping your spouse from killing you?

What if, instead of imprisoning spousal murderers, we rewarded them? Do you think that we would see any increase in the rates of spousal murder? Should we let our own sense of morality drive our distaste for spousal murder?

Look, I'm entirely comfortable with eliminating the State from marriage entirely. Return it to the purview of the Church and/or civil contracts. Each couple could negotiate the terms of the dissolution of their marriage before it ever happens. Our politicians would no longer be tasked with creating a one-size-fits-all method of divorce.

But that's all pie in the sky. Until that Utopia exists we have to live in our real world. And here, our family courts treat a spousal abuser exactly the same as they treat the abused. They treat a bored spouse who wants to walk away exactly the same as the bewildered spouse who is left behind.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> However, for people who file for divorce for frivolous reasons, I think they should suffer some sort of penalty for blowing up their families.


Okay, so the ultimate desire is to punish people for "blowing up their families." And thus we need to decide who is the "innocent" party and who is to "blame." But really people aren't that cut and dry. There isn't a sinner and a saint, a martyr and a devil. 

And last time I was called for jury duty, I was explicitly told I could not hold anything against the defendant that was not against the law. (In that case it was that they weren't wearing a helmet on a motorcycle and were suing for brain injuries - in a state where helmets aren't legally required.) So to consider those "crimes" in court, are we going back to adultery being illegal and punishable under the law? Should people go to jail?



> Should we let our own sense of morality drive our distaste for spousal murder?


You mean like letting our sense of morality driving our distaste for cheaters "getting away with it" and needing to be punished for "blowing up families." 

And the questions about murder are a total strawman. I don't want murder to be legal not because of my spouse, but because of other people. Might the threat of prison be the only thing keeping random people I don't know form killing me, maybe. How quickly would we become "The Purge" if we made murder legal? Who knows and I don't want to know. 



> They treat a bored spouse who wants to walk away exactly the same as the bewildered spouse who is left behind.


Again, just because a spouse is "bewildered" about why their spouse walked away doesn't mean that person is innocent. They might just be totally oblivious. Their spouse might have been telling them for ages about problems but they didn't "hear" them. Walking away may have been the final step, not the first.


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

I don't think people should have to prove a reason for divorce. While I do wish people would think long and hard about it. It should not be something that is done on a moments notice. The problem is, it is almost impossible to legislate this aspect of it. Requiring there to be a major event that happens like adultery or abuse for a divorce to be allowed is like asking someone to either just wait it out or force one of those things to happen if they want out bad enough. That is not right. 
As for the men vs. women aspect of this, I don't think that should play any kind of role at all. 
When it comes to fathers rights in a divorce, there definitely needs to be some change there when it comes to fathers who want and deserve the equal time with their children.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Boottothehead said:


> As far as fathers' rights, my husband filed after his ex basically kidnapped their daughter. He didn't file charges. He acquiesced on alimony and child support and gave away filing tax status. Why? Because he wants his daughter to know that he is a better person than her mother. As a result, he only sees his little girl twice a month, talks to her only when her mother allows him to, and is a financial captive to this woman. If for any reason her payment is late (and it's paid through the courts and the state, not privately), she withholds access to his daughter. But he still is trying to "be the bigger man". Because he's not her mother, though, she can get away with this crap. It's very frustrating.


Tell your Husband to file motions to modify EVERYTHING and yank that sorry a$$ woman in court and FIGHT!

I WAS your husband 12 years ago. I made those SAME decisions and you know what. My kids don't see me as some kind of "saint". The problem is your H's exW would give him trouble NO MATTER the circumstance. He's trying to avoid the fighting in front of the kids and eliminate ammunition the mom can use against him towards his daughter. The problem is the mom is going to paint him as bad REGARDLESS. She'll even throw the fact that he barely sees or calls his daughter in his face. I had that done to me. After all the manipulating of the system to take my kids away and fighting me over money. My exW threw me being a bad dad in my face. That was the breaking point for me and I yanked her butt back in court.

The issue is about control. My ex still wanted to control me.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> Okay, so the ultimate desire is to punish people for "blowing up their families." And thus we need to decide who is the "innocent" party and who is to "blame." But really people aren't that cut and dry. There isn't a sinner and a saint, a martyr and a devil.


The ultimate desire is to decrease the frequency of divorce and to make the family court system more fair. In order to do that, we don't have to assign 100% blame to either party. If one spouse is 70% at fault for the divorce, the allocation of assets could easily reflect that.



> And last time I was called for jury duty, I was explicitly told I could not hold anything against the defendant that was not against the law. (In that case it was that they weren't wearing a helmet on a motorcycle and were suing for brain injuries - in a state where helmets aren't legally required.) So to consider those "crimes" in court, are we going back to adultery being illegal and punishable under the law? Should people go to jail?


Adultery is illegal in most jurisdictions. However, nobody has gone to jail over it in my lifetime. However, that point is academic. Family court is not criminal court. Family court can recognize that adultery is detrimental to marriage without putting the adulterer in jail.



> And the questions about murder are a total strawman. I don't want murder to be legal not because of my spouse, but because of other people. Might the threat of prison be the only thing keeping random people I don't know form killing me, maybe. How quickly would we become "The Purge" if we made murder legal? Who knows and I don't want to know.


It's not a straw man. I simply used your logic on another issue. You stated that my desire to make divorce more difficult and/or less rewarding must stem from a fear of my wife divorcing me. By the same logic, we could say that opposition to the legalization of spouse murder must stem from a fear of being murdered by one's spouse.

And I'm not talking about legalizing murder between strangers. I'm talking about legalizing the murder of one spouse by another. If a stranger murdered you, he would still go to jail.

For the record, I think it's a bad idea, just as you do. And for the same reasons that you do. Legalizing spousal murder would probably result in an increase in spousal murder. And rewarding it would certainly see an increase. It follows that the explosion in the divorce rate in recent decades is, in large part, the result of our legal system making divorce easier and more rewarding.



> Again, just because a spouse is "bewildered" about why their spouse walked away doesn't mean that person is innocent. They might just be totally oblivious. Their spouse might have been telling them for ages about problems but they didn't "hear" them. Walking away may have been the final step, not the first.


Correct. Not every single walk away spouse is the majority at fault party in a divorce. But don't think me foolish enough to believe that it doesn't happen. Especially when the courts don't consider the reasons for divorce, however frivolous they may be. Also, the spouses could hash it out in court. If the husband is filing for divorce because he hates his wife's cooking, I see no reason for the court to treat that on equal grounds as adultery.

Frankly, it amazes me that so many people are so resistant to the idea that we should try to reduce frivolous divorce.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

I just have less faith that increasing the court costs to have divorcees hashing it out about to discover fault is going to lead to less divorces. Divorce laws is only one part of the equation on why there are more divorces, culture is another big change. 
And you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

Laws were more stringent when the culture accepted those reasons. When religion was more prevalent and more important in people's lives, and when you wouldn't dream of recommending people live together for a few years to "really figure it out" before people get married. 

Also:



> Also, the spouses could hash it out in court. If the husband is filing for divorce because he hates his wife's cooking, I see no reason for the court to treat that on equal grounds as adultery.


You don't feel that should have equal grounds, but there's no guarantee any particular judge will agree. And why is adultery in a special category, outside of religious arguments?


----------



## Boottothehead (Sep 3, 2013)

*Dad&Hubby*, here in Oklahoma, it's a mom-centered state. We will have to spend a chunk of change to amend the custody agreement/visitation plan. She won't be happy until my husband is out of the picture entirely , because she like being the injured party, and to have him "abandon them both" would be the ultimate prize (I think.) Never mind the fact that she has remarried herself. So, she will fight, fight, fight to keep her advantages.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

if the motorcycle rider who was brain injured by someone elses negligence...... the person who cause the accident then he should be able to sue .If nobody cause it and he just wrecked then there is nobody to sue.


just had to get that out.


I agree that a spouce that decides to get divorce with out any real merit like abuse/addiction/infidelity....and I'm sure we could name a few more grivious marital sins that would make the grade for divorce. then In my opinion they should not get rewarded,or special treatment. in matters reguarding custody or matital assets.

I don't know if I would consider it punishment but a fair. you want out then go ahead and leave but to get equal assets and primary costody then that in my humble opinion is wrong.

it happens all the time everyone of us knows someone its happened to sometimes its so blatant its sickening.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Boottothehead said:


> *Dad&Hubby*, here in Oklahoma, it's a mom-centered state. We will have to spend a chunk of change to amend the custody agreement/visitation plan. She won't be happy until my husband is out of the picture entirely , because she like being the injured party, and to have him "abandon them both" would be the ultimate prize (I think.) Never mind the fact that she has remarried herself. So, she will fight, fight, fight to keep her advantages.


I'm in CT which is also a very "Mom" centric state but the law is the law and MOST judges don't like to see either party stomped on.

You don't necessarily have to fight to amend the money part right now, just try to amend the visitation (go for the 50/50 IF you are nearby and it wouldn't throw the established lives up into total chaos). But filing (now this was 6-7 years ago for me) a motion was $35. And I did it myself. You can represent yourself and if your demands are simply to hold her to the divorce and custody agreements, the judge will not fight you. Odds are you'll get to a mediator first. 1. The exwife CAN NOT with hold visitation based on support. It's illegal, so write down everytime it happens and after 2 or 3, file for contempt. 2. If she plays the "sick card" or messing with vacation. File both contempt (because you can care for a sick child just as much as she can) and file to modify vacation to be the same weeks every year.

Your H has protection under the law. Judges don't want to keep seeing the same people when the one bringing the motions is simply trying to get the original agreements upheld. Your H's exwife will QUICKLY gain a reputation. Once she's a known problem, she will get a judicial slap down.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> I just have less faith that increasing the court costs to have divorcees hashing it out about to discover fault is going to lead to less divorces.


It's basic economics. Making something more costly and/or difficult shifts the demand curve. It's true that a person who is being horribly treated by his spouse would likely file for divorce regardless of cost. However, some people on the margins would refrain.

There is another thread on these boards where a young man who was married for a short time (no assets and no kids) was dissuaded by filing for divorce by the effort it would take to fill out some forms at the court house. He remained married for another year. To someone only slightly less apathetic about divorcing as that man, even a small added cost would definitely make him think twice about divorcing.



> Divorce laws is only one part of the equation on why there are more divorces, culture is another big change.
> And you can't put that genie back in the bottle.


True, culture plays a part. But, which one came first? One could certainly argue that changing the laws to make divorce easy and rewarding resulted in a culture that values easy and rewarding divorce.

And I think we can go back. The cultural and legal pendulum tends to swing back and forth on most things. Recent years have seen lifetime alimony curtailed in several states. Men's rights in divorce is becoming a mainstream issue. Recognizing the role that no-fault divorce has played in the explosion of divorce, and all the resultant harm done to families, could certainly lead to a movement to go back to recognizing fault in divorce.



> You don't feel that should have equal grounds, but there's no guarantee any particular judge will agree. And why is adultery in a special category, outside of religious arguments?


I was using adultery as an example of something that is universally seen as a legitimate reason for divorce. And I think atheists see adultery as just as much a betrayal as believers do.

If you're worried about judges being unreasonable in siding with one spouse over another, there are two remedies. First, the legislature could codify legitimate grounds for divorce. Most already have. Adultery and physical abuse would certainly be considered justified grounds for divorce. And things like boredom would certainly not be. Second, if the judge were unreasonable, he could be voted out of office.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

I'm just curious, though in the end - do we legitimately feel that if people can't divorce (as their reason isn't "good enough") that the marriage is going to just magically improve? That they'll go from a couple who wants to divorce to the perfect married couple who is the perfect household for kids (as this seems to be a big concern here.) When someone wants to leave a marriage, whether the reason is "frivolous" or otherwise, what is truly gained by forcing the couple to stay together? 

People will just return to doing what they did when divorce was harder - living separate without legally divorcing. They may or may not go on to both commit adultery by getting new partners while the state won't recognize the divorce. The kids won't be any better off, as whether or not the parents are legally divorced, still aren't together.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

I can't fathom being forced to stay in a marriage with a cheater. I assume that whatever applied to the woman would apply to men, as well so I would just go on the run.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> I'm just curious, though in the end - do we legitimately feel that if people can't divorce (as their reason isn't "good enough") that the marriage is going to just magically improve? That they'll go from a couple who wants to divorce to the perfect married couple who is the perfect household for kids (as this seems to be a big concern here.) When someone wants to leave a marriage, whether the reason is "frivolous" or otherwise, what is truly gained by forcing the couple to stay together?


I'm not suggesting that people not be allowed to divorce. I'm suggesting that, if one party has frivolous reasons for divorce, that the courts consider those reasons to be frivolous when deciding on child custody, asset allocation, and support payments.

If a husband wants to leave because of boredom, perhaps the knowledge that he will see his children less often and will fare badly in a divorce will be enough to make him recommit to his marriage. If not, at least the wife, who is willing to stay and work on things, isn't punished by attributing 50% of the blame for the divorce on her.

And I certainly think that most marriages can be improved by people who are motivated to work on it. If that motivation comes because of true love, then great. If that motivation comes from a desire to protect one's assets, well an improved marriage is still a pretty good result.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

So as a point of curiosity on the scale of frivolousness where does want to divorce because wife gained 25 lbs rank? (As that seems a frequent flyer on the forums.) Is that frivolous? Is she then going to be assigned less child support per pound? If she loses the weight can she renogiate child support? Can she renegotiate if he claims that's the reason he wanted to divorce her and his next partner is larger than the wife he divorced? Is the percentage of divorce that's her fault balanced against whether he's gained weight during the marriage (but only men are visual so it doesn't matter ... right?)

I mean look at that scenario with all the "what if" contingent questions. Seriously, bypass all this, make it so all marriages need a pre-nup about assets and support on file with the state before you are allowed an application. Deciding on the "percentage of fault" thing is too complicated, allows for way too much personal bias. 

Also, given all the talk on TAM about how divorce laws "shaft men" who doesn't really know that divorce is going to take you away from your kids and potentially reduce your standard of living? That final realization is really going to inspire people to work on their marriages? If it doesn't now when the laws are so stringent, why will it suddenly happen then?


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser (Apr 7, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> And I certainly think that most marriages can be improved by people who are motivated to work on it. If that motivation comes because of true love, then great. *If that motivation comes from a desire to protect one's assets, well an improved marriage is still a pretty good result.*


Well, I may be WAY off base because I'll admit I'm jaded, but...

Protecting one's assets is extremely unlikely to lead to an improved marriage. It is extremely likely to lead to an increase in rat poison sales and fatal household "accidents". 

If people are so greedy that mere financial gain would 'motivate' them to 'work' on their marriage (when they couldn't give a crap about it before), then they're the kind of people who would figure out how much MORE they have to gain financially if dear old S.O. died!


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

So lemme see.
Get married, discover you're no longer attracted to your spouse for whatever " frivolous " reason, get divorced , meet your 
" _soulmate_ ", get married again, find out you two are _not really _meant for each other, get divorced albeit , amicably ,discover an old friend,
Wash rinse and repeat.
In the meantime the kids somewhere in between there 
*_doing fin_e.*

No wonder people are beginning to question the logic behind getting married.
Yes?
If getting divorced should be even simpler than getting married , then why get married?
Don't need to get married to have sex, kids, or a house.
In fact, it may very well save the government tons of money if they got out of the marriage contract, and no longer guaranteed marriages.
People should just do their own thing and walk away whenever they felt like it.
After all we are all adults here and we don't need the government telling us how to live. 
We can decide for ourselves when we've had enough , and should be able to walk away from a marriage without having to answer to the government or _anyone_, for our decision..
Yes?

So here's a new construct.

Two people meet and " fall in love."
Since the marriage institution no longer exists, or has become redundant,they simply purchase a house ,cohabit and have kids.
The woman puts on 5 lbs , the man decides he's no longer attracted to her. Since marriage does not exist, then no divorce is necessary, and he * falls in love * with another woman , they purchase a house and he starts a family with her.
Woman #1 has no problems getting other lover , but they are not interested to supporting her kids and her mortgage payments which she's struggling with because she has to pay for her car, and the kids father is not financially supporting the kids enough to allow her to do so.
How does she solve that?
She now has to hire a lawyer and pay a bailiff to get some money.
But the kids father decides to sue her because they bought the house together, and since he no longer lives there , he wants his share of what he put in.
She looses in court because she couldn't afford a good lawyer , she and her kids are put on the streets.
Kids grow up learning nothing but hate , they become juvenile delinquents, and eventually criminals.

Now picture that scenario millions of times over, in every state, city and community.
Got it?

That's why the government got involved in the first place, set the laws and regulations so that both parties benefit equally when they get married and are supposed to lose equally , 
Should they decide to divorce.

That's also the reason lady justice wears a blindfold , with a scale in her left hand and a sword in the right.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> So as a point of curiosity on the scale of frivolousness where does want to divorce because wife gained 25 lbs rank? (As that seems a frequent flyer on the forums.) Is that frivolous?


Oh, since we're just spit balling out of left field here, I would say that is a 2 on a scale of 1-10. Especially if she gained the weight over several years. If she gained it quickly, maybe a 3.



> I mean look at that scenario with all the "what if" contingent questions. Seriously, bypass all this, make it so all marriages need a pre-nup about assets and support on file with the state before you are allowed an application. Deciding on the "percentage of fault" thing is too complicated, allows for way too much personal bias.


It is possible that at-fault divorce is too complicated and allows for bias. However, I hold that it is preferable to abandoning the idea of fault all together and allowing either party to divorce at any time, for any reason with no consideration for either party's behavior.

Yes, I like the idea of pre-nups. But only if the courts allow them to stand. In many (most?) states, pre-nups are routinely thrown out of court. Especially when dealing with long-term marriages.



> Also, given all the talk on TAM about how divorce laws "shaft men" who doesn't really know that divorce is going to take you away from your kids and potentially reduce your standard of living?


Well, most men know that. That's one reason why they file for divorce less than half as often as women do.



> That final realization is really going to inspire people to work on their marriages? If it doesn't now when the laws are so stringent, why will it suddenly happen then?


Right now, there is little incentive to work on marriage. If you are perfect and your spouse is a total bastard, it doesn't matter in the divorce. Yes, the custody/support laws favor women. However, they would favor a woman who was a perfect wife exactly the same as they would favor a woman who was the world's worst wife.

Again, why does that sound fair to so many folks here? Any suggestion to incentivize good behavior in marriage, leading to fewer divorces, fewer children growing up in broken homes, and fewer problems in society from these children, people get up in arms and suggest that we can't possibly do it.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

SlowlyGettingWiser said:


> Well, I may be WAY off base because I'll admit I'm jaded, but...
> 
> Protecting one's assets is extremely unlikely to lead to an improved marriage. It is extremely likely to lead to an increase in rat poison sales and fatal household "accidents".
> 
> If people are so greedy that mere financial gain would 'motivate' them to 'work' on their marriage (when they couldn't give a crap about it before), then they're the kind of people who would figure out how much MORE they have to gain financially if dear old S.O. died!


Your hyperbole is noted. And I shall respond in kind.

I think you have it exactly backwards. If a good and loyal spouse is guaranteed to be treated in a divorce exactly the same as the world's worst spouse, then what incentive, beyond being good for goodness sake, does he/she have to behave well in the marriage? Under the current system, the best option for a well behaving spouse about to be put through the ringer by a frivolous divorce is to kill the offending spouse and hope to get away with it.

So, what I'm proposing will actually save the lives of those spouses looking to frivolously divorce that you're so concerned about. How many more have to die before we reinstitute at-fault divorce?!?


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> Again, why does that sound fair to so many folks here? Any suggestion to incentivize good behavior in marriage, leading to fewer divorces, fewer children growing up in broken homes, and fewer problems in society from these children, people get up in arms and suggest that we can't possibly do it.


This isn't about whether or not the current system is "fair." It's because I don't think the government (by way of courts) should be in the business of deciding morality. Which inherently labeling "good" and "bad" behavior requires. As does deciding on things like "the world's worst wife." So - mark this day down. The day you'll get a liberal to say - no, the government can't solve all your problems. Why give the government that power?

You know what use to incentize good behavior, leading to fewer divorces? Social pressure. Divorce used to have a social stigma, it used to be a problem. It used to be unacceptable and affected your social standing. Now you have people on threads here saying things like, "I'd date a man with divorce(s) everyone goes through at least one these days."

If rather than coddling or worse, encouraging cheaters, family and friends said, "Tell him or her or I'm going to." If when a married person complained to a family member or friend they weren't the first to encourage divorce rather than counseling because "they never really liked them anyways" you might see more people work on stuff. Use TAM right here - start encouraging people to work on things rather than divorce. 

Be the change you want to see.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> This isn't about whether or not the current system is "fair." It's because I don't think the government (by way of courts) should be in the business of deciding morality.


But government is already in the business of deciding morality. Our government incentivizes "good", or desirable, if you prefer, behavior in all kinds of ways. And it disincentivizes bad, or undesirable, behavior in all kinds of ways.

Now, if you want to get the state out of marriage completely, and leave child custody, support payments, and asset allocation to private parties to negotiate before marriage, and perhaps use private arbitrators when disputes arise, then I'm on board with that.

But, if we're going to have the courts decide things anyway, why not give them permission to decide things as fairly as possible? Why insist that recognizing that adultery is worse than being boring is a step that would end life as we know it?



> You know what use to incentize good behavior, leading to fewer divorces? Social pressure. Divorce used to have a social stigma, it used to be a problem. It used to be unacceptable and affected your social standing. Now you have people on threads here saying things like, "I'd date a man with divorce(s) everyone goes through at least one these days."


Sure. I would love more social stigma against divorce. But I think that the lack of social stigma against divorce followed the no-fault laws, which resulted in an explosion in the divorce rate. When everybody is divorced, of course most people will rationalize that divorce isn't so bad.

However, I'm not all that hopeful. On a pro-marriage board, I seem to be one of the few who wants to see meaningful reform to discourage frivolous divorce.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Now, if you want to get the state out of marriage completely, and leave child custody, support payments, and asset allocation to private parties to negotiate before marriage, and perhaps use private arbitrators when disputes arise, then I'm on board with that.
> 
> *But, if we're going to have the courts decide things anyway, why not give them permission to decide things as fairly as possible? Why insist that recognizing that adultery is worse than being boring is a step that would end life as we know it?*


:iagree:
My point , exactly.
_Because_ the government is involved, it must be fair and unbiased.

Without the government's involvement in the marriage contract, all hell will break loose.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

I didn't even know this thread was still going. Here is an excerpt from a Washington Post article that came out today with more details on what the candidate was trying to do.

_Under Virginia’s current law, there’s no such thing as a quickie divorce. A couple seeking a no-fault divorce must separate for at least year before they can be granted one. Many couples find that route preferable to arguing over–and proving–such claims as adultery, even if that is the cause of the break-up.

In 2008, as a state senator, Cuccinelli proposed to make it impossible, in marriages with minor children, for a spouse to file for divorce under this procedure if the other spouse filed a written objection. As Cuccinelli put it in a 2008 speech: “What we’re trying to do is essentially repeal no-fault divorce when there are children involved.”

But, as McAuliffe’s ad stated, that also means the spouse seeking a divorce would need, possibly at great expense, to make a case for one of the other grounds, such as adultery or physical abuse.

McAuliffe’s ad, designed to take advantage of a gender gap in the race, emphasized the impact of this shift from the perspective of the woman. For instance, here’s what the state of Virginia says about proving adultery: “Proving adultery is very fact-specific. The evidence must be strict, satisfactory and conclusive that the other spouse did in fact engage in sexual relations with another person.” So if a no-fault divorce is not available, that’s the burden that a woman wanting a divorce would need to climb if Cuccinelli’s proposal had become law.

As far as we can tell, Cuccinelli has never said he was targeting women. Cuccinelli, in campaign literature in 2007, offered this reason for his tough stance on divorce: “We must strictly enforce court orders related to custody and make sure custody decisions are based on the best interest of children. Studies show that the dissolution of marriage has long term negative impacts on children and those marriages that last for five years are much more likely to go the distance. For this reason, the state has an interest in marital preservation. I support family law reform that establishes mutual consent divorce and requires counseling where children are involved, unless abuse is involved.”_


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> But, if we're going to have the courts decide things anyway, why not give them permission to decide things as fairly as possible?


I guess that in the end is out basic disagreement. I don't believe that "as fairly as possible" would be within my comfort level. Neither would the need to "prove" abuse. 

I had an abusive ex, and I guess I shudder to think if I'd made the mistake of marrying him and then would have had to go to court and attempt to prove it as the means to end our relationship. And wonder well ... what if I wouldn't have been able to prove it? 

As you can say abuse would be a valid "not frivolous" reason for divorce, but how do you prove abuse that took place ages before the court case? If you take pictures, what if the abuser takes them or destroys them or attempting to indeed, keep evidence just leads to further abuse? And what happens when no doubt their lawyer argues as they do in domestic violence cases anyways that it "couldn't have been that bad" if you stayed so long?

What sorts of evidence would be required?


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I'm not suggesting that people not be allowed to divorce. I'm suggesting that, if one party has frivolous reasons for divorce, that the courts consider those reasons to be frivolous when deciding on child custody, asset allocation, and support payments.
> 
> If a husband wants to leave because of boredom, perhaps the knowledge that he will see his children less often and will fare badly in a divorce will be enough to make him recommit to his marriage. If not, at least the wife, who is willing to stay and work on things, isn't punished by attributing 50% of the blame for the divorce on her.
> 
> And I certainly think that most marriages can be improved by people who are motivated to work on it. If that motivation comes because of true love, then great. If that motivation comes from a desire to protect one's assets, well an improved marriage is still a pretty good result.


The problem with that is that how do you decide what a frivolous reason is. There could be things deep down that would make it much better for both people to move on. I don't think the reasons for wanting a divorce should impact how the assets are broken up. That needs to be done in the most fair way to both parties involved.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

The only frivolous reason I've heard repeatedly listed is "boredom."

So, I'm also curious what a list would be. As even on TAM, I'm not sure I've actually read a thread where someone said the reason they wanted to divorce was "boredom."


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> I guess that in the end is out basic disagreement. I don't believe that "as fairly as possible" would be within my comfort level.


I agree. I want a fair system. You like the current, unfair system. I don't know that there's much middle ground.

Although, I suppose a system that is more fair than our current system, but still not completely fair, would be an improvement that I could support.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

gbrad said:


> The problem with that is that how do you decide what a frivolous reason is.


The same way we decide other legal issues. The legislature would pass laws dealing with divorce. The laws would include valid reasons for divorce. Judges would then apply those laws to divorces. It used to happen in this country before the 1970s and it really wasn't as chaotic as many here believe.



> I don't think the reasons for wanting a divorce should impact how the assets are broken up. That needs to be done in the most fair way to both parties involved.


Those two sentences are incongruent. If one spouse is loyal and well-behaved and the other spouse is adulterous and abusive, you think the most fair way to dissolve the marriage is to treat them both as equally responsible for the failure of the marriage? That just seems foolish to me.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Starstarfish said:


> The only frivolous reason I've heard repeatedly listed is "boredom."
> 
> So, I'm also curious what a list would be. As even on TAM, I'm not sure I've actually read a thread where someone said the reason they wanted to divorce was "boredom."


I have. Of course, most spouses have enough shame that they don't publicly declare that boredom drove them to divorce. So they use euphemisms such as "grew apart" to explain the divorce. How many times have you heard that reason given?

A few years back, there was a book and movie called Eat, Pray, Love that was a runaway success. Tens of millions of people either read the book, saw the movie, or both.

And the story was about a woman who married a nice guy, got bored with him, cheated on him, divorced him, and then went across the world like a kid on spring break. And people cheered her.

That wasn't a story about a woman surviving abuse, dealing with the despair of infidelity, being abandoned by her husband, or anything on that level. It was about a woman who was sad and bored and wanted to find herself, without her husband. Yay!!

Now, I'm not saying that she shouldn't have been allowed to go find herself by sleeping with other men. I'm just saying that the husband should have been given due consideration in the divorce as the more loyal spouse and then cut Elizabeth Gilbert loose with less change in her purse.


----------

