# Why does the law allow cheaters to get paid?



## Married in VA (Jan 6, 2012)

I guess the toughest thing about being a BS is that you are really in a terrible position in all respects. On the one hand, you can live with a WS who is not remorseful and keeps the affair going or you can file for divorce. Filing for divorce means paying spousal support (1/3 of salary potentially) for a long time and possibly child support as well. Why should a BS fork over half of his/her pay to support a WS? The courts don't care why you are there but want to make the spouses as "equal" as possible. I guess being a BS is just a bad spot to be as you pay now emotionally and potentially financially for many years (decades).

Just my .02$ Thoughts?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Married in VA said:


> I guess the toughest thing about being a BS is that you are really in a terrible position in all respects. On the one hand, you can live with a WS who is not remorseful and keeps the affair going or you can file for divorce. Filing for divorce means paying spousal support (1/3 of salary potentially) for a long time and possibly child support as well. Why should a BS fork over half of his/her pay to support a WS? The courts don't care why you are there but want to make the spouses as "equal" as possible. I guess being a BS is just a bad spot to be as you pay now emotionally and potentially financially for many years (decades).
> 
> Just my .02$ Thoughts?


 Divorce is a civil action. It’s not criminal court. Don't look for justice in a civil court and certainly not in family court.

I don’t know what state you live in. Some states still take things like adultery into consideration.

When you married you signed a marriage contract. You have to live by that contract. The contract is basically the family law of the state you are married in, or that you live in. You knew the deal when you married. So why are you complaining now?

Many states have gone to no fault divorce because the courts do not have the funds to handle the huge number of divorces they have to handle. When spouses can bring in fault, such as adultery, spousal abuse, etc. it takes a lot more of courts time to prove. It wastes a lot more of the divorcing couple’s assets. 

I think that the courts are just quite honestly sick and tired of dealing with the trash that married couples put each other though. Who wants to deal with the soap operas. Just fix the marriage or divorce. Plus there are all of the false claims that are made when things like adultery can be used in a divorce… and then the innocent party has to spend tens of thousands to protect themselves.

A child should never be punished because one or both of their parents cheated. So cutting off child support is just nonsense.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

The state does not want your failed marriage to create a burden on the tax payers, that is why.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

sisters359 said:


> The state does not want your failed marriage to create a burden on the tax payers, that is why.


:iagree: that too


----------



## Married in VA (Jan 6, 2012)

Yes, I do see the point about not wanting to create a burden on tax payers. I have not filed yet as I am still shopping attorneys. I do know that since my WS was a home maker and I made the money, I am going to get stuck with huge alimony. I think alimony is an outdated concept in our egalitarian society. It made sense in the "Leave it to Beaver" era, but not now when both partners have equal opportunity to make money. I did pay for my WS's education to obtain her certificate in medical billing and coding. She just hasn't found a job yet nor is she really looking but instead waiting for the judge to carve up my paycheck like a Thanksgiving turkey.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

From EleGirl...



> Divorce is a civil action. It’s not criminal court. Don't look for justice in a civil court and certainly not in family court.


Why _the h..l_ not!?



> I don’t know what state you live in. Some states still take things like adultery into consideration.


Into _consideration?_ When it is the only and exclusive causative issue in the action?



> When you married you signed a marriage contract. You have to live by that contract. The contract is basically the family law of the state you are married in, or that you live in. You knew the deal when you married. So why are you complaining now?


I wonder why I can’t remember ever seeing such a “contract”. Could it be that such a fraudulent contract exists only in the judge’s mind, at the time he is issuing his rulings in the divorce, and is composed of a ridiculous hodge-podge of confused and contradictory statute and case law, combined with local "judicial custom" and the question of which law firm has contributed the most to the judge’s campaign committee? Add to these considerations the fact that the statutory and case law involved is changing daily and there is only one safe bet on the outcome: the "moneyed” spouse is in for a screwing!



> Many states have gone to no fault divorce because the courts do not have the funds to handle the huge number of divorces they have to handle. When spouses can bring in fault, such as adultery, spousal abuse, etc. it takes a lot more of courts time to prove. It wastes a lot more of the divorcing couple’s assets.


If they have the time and assets to prove guilt (or liability), and to punish it in criminal cases, they have sufficient assets to do the same in divorces. Failing this, they should simply declare that they are powerless to behave justly, and close their doors!




> A child should never be punished because one or both of their parents cheated. So cutting off child support is just nonsense.


The alternative and just solution to this dilemma is for the court to always award custody to the betrayed spouse, if they want it. If marriage is indeed a “contract” as you have suggested, and this contract prohibits adultery, then a judgment for damages should be entered against the wayward spouse.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

The high cost of divorce has soured the idea of marriage for many men and women. It's no surprising the findings from the article below.



> *Unmarried Households Put Married Couples In The Minority *
> 
> Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau shows married couples have found themselves in a new position: They're no longer the majority.
> 
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Galt said:


> Why _the h..l_ not!?


Because this country is not run by the Taliban???????





Galt said:


> Into _consideration?_ When it is the only and exclusive causative issue in the action?


And who decides what the causative issues are in a divorce? Marriage usually not so simple that there is one bad person and one saint. 



Galt said:


> I wonder why I can’t remember ever seeing such a “contract”.


A lot of people do not bother to find out what the marriage contract is and what the laws are before they get married. Not reading the contract/law is the fault of the person who failed to find out what they are signing.


Galt said:


> Could it be that such a fraudulent contract exists only in the judge’s mind, at the time he is issuing his rulings in the divorce, and is composed of a ridiculous hodge-podge of confused and contradictory statute and case law, combined with local "judicial custom" and the question of which law firm has contributed the most to the judge’s campaign committee? Add to these considerations the fact that the statutory and case law involved is changing daily and there is only one safe bet on the outcome: the "moneyed” spouse is in for a screwing!


I see you are a legal scholar who knows how it all works. You are obviously angry that the marriage contract and law does not favor some view point that you hold. There are no perfect laws and no perfect courts. Instead that law and courts have tried to do the best they can with the mess people make out of their own lives. 



Galt said:


> If they have the time and assets to prove guilt (or liability), and to punish it in criminal cases, they have sufficient assets to do the same in divorces. Failing this, they should simply declare that they are powerless to behave justly, and close their doors!


Should we start stoning adulterers again? Would that make you happy? 






Galt said:


> The alternative and just solution to this dilemma is for the court to always award custody to the betrayed spouse, if they want it. If marriage is indeed a “contract” as you have suggested, and this contract prohibits adultery, then a judgment for damages should be entered against the wayward spouse.


Oh really? Always award the children to the betrayed spouse? And what if the BS is an abusive person? What if losing their parent destroys the child? Custody is not about who gets to own the children. It’s about what is best for the children. Children really do not give a hoot about the awful things that their parents do to each other. Children usually love both of their parents and want them both in their lives. Take a child completely away from either parents and what we get are broken children who turn to drugs and fill up our jails. I’ve seen kids go through this...it’s not pretty.

Even as a BS, there comes a time when you have to let go. There comes a time when you have to get on with our life and find inner peace. Being bitter and angry is like taking poison and expecting the other person to die…. It only kills you.


----------



## i.bellagardner (Nov 10, 2011)

Married in VA said:


> I guess the toughest thing about being a BS is that you are really in a terrible position in all respects. On the one hand, you can live with a WS who is not remorseful and keeps the affair going or you can file for divorce. Filing for divorce means paying spousal support (1/3 of salary potentially) for a long time and possibly child support as well. Why should a BS fork over half of his/her pay to support a WS? The courts don't care why you are there but want to make the spouses as "equal" as possible. I guess being a BS is just a bad spot to be as you pay now emotionally and potentially financially for many years (decades).
> 
> Just my .02$ Thoughts?


That's a very sad reality. Perhaps, they say there's no equal thing in this world. But I'm still believing that it's not true.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

From Morimuri:



> The high cost of divorce has soured the idea of marriage for many men and women. It's no surprising the findings from the article below.
> 
> Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau shows married couples have found themselves in a new position: They're no longer the majority.
> 
> It's a trend that's been creeping along for decades, but in the 2010 Census, married couples represent 48 percent of all households. That's down from 52 percent in the last Census and, for the first time in U.S. history, puts households led by married couples as a plurality….


*I wonder. How many of these respondents only think that they are not married but will, in a future divorce action (yet to be filed against them), discover that they really were married and simply didn’t know it. This includes those who will one day be declared so under outrageous laws such as Texas “common law” marriage and California “palimony”. These parties will one day find that they are liable for everything, or nearly everything, for which they would have been if they had signed a formal marriage agreement.*


> And attitudes on marriage are changing, too. About 39 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete, according to a Pew Research Center study published in November, up from 28 percent in 1978...


*Marriage has been statutorily made obsolete, with all marriages effectively cancelled, with the introduction of “no-fault divorce” in the 1980’s. How can a “contract” exist if all of the real terms of it (the verbal vows) are cancelled, by law, as soon as they are spoken? These vows are centered upon the permanency of the relationship (“…‘til death do us part”), and probably don’t even authorize divorce at all. Yet these no-fault laws guarantee each party the right to unilaterally divorce the other at any time, and for no demonstrable reason.

To add insult to injury, these same laws provide for liability to the plaintiff to be assigned to the respondent in the case, including the obligation to pay CS, alimony, and one-half of all they own as if they were guilty of misbehaviour, even when they can prove that they were not! *


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

EleGirl said:


> Because this country is not run by the Taliban???????
> 
> *And who decides what the causative issues are in a divorce? Marriage usually not so simple that there is one bad person and one saint. *
> 
> ...


Not the most up-beat or inspiring post I've read today, but I think you're spot-on.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

Elegirl said:


> …Don't look for justice in a civil court and certainly not in family court.
> 
> (Galt) Why not?
> .
> Because this country is not run by the Taliban???????


*If you mean to say (that we should not) look for justice in a civil court and certainly not in a family court “because this country is not run by the Taliban," then you are certainly making a statement in favor of them. Is this what you wanted to do?


I would like to rebut all of the other statements in your post--and will do so--but first I would very much like to know your approximate age and something about your education. This is because, as you can understand, people have to be addressed with some knowledge of their general experience in life and vocabulary.*


----------

