# A possible defense against the divorce/child-support industrial complex



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/...-the-united-states-since-2009/#comment-171914

Discuss.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

So he got the kids, and used them as leverage to turn his ex into his servant? It doesn't say specifically, but it sounds like she'd have less than 50% custody unless she agreed to keep living with him as a housekeeper. Why not be adults and just share custody? It sounds like he was toying with her to punish her for trying to get child support.

That story is so sad.


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

That is a crazy story. I'd be devastated if treated that way. I can't imagine it. The only reason his plan worked was because he got custody of the kids in the first place though. I don't see that becoming an option for many fathers.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Ok, now reverse the sexes and see if you are as outraged.


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

She tried to leave him first, so if she had her way he would have been screwed over. He was clever enough to turn the tables on her while simultaneously keeping the whole family together. 

I have to admire his cleverness. It's a good example actually. It's not a possibility for many men as I said, but it does show what it means to have the upper hand. 

My husband would never treat me like that but I also don't try to use sex or our kids as an instrument of power. So I definitely understand his viewpoint and I guess I'm ultimately glad she seems happy enough with him after all that. Certainly makes one think though.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

technovelist said:


> Ok, now reverse the sexes and see if you are as outraged.


I see it as being pretty messed up, no matter which gender we're talking about.

It's one parent saying to the other, "If you want to see your kids more than every other weekend, you'll have to live with me and do all our cooking and cleaning. But don't worry, I'll give you an allowance." We don't even know why she left... maybe she didn't just want his money, maybe he was emotionally abusive and manipulative, who knows?

This whole thing is cold and manipulative. Situations like this are part of the reason I believe that in any custody situation with two stable parents, the default should be 50% custody for each. She probably wouldn't have agreed to be her ex's maid, if she had equal rights to their children.

I don't see this situation as clever or commendable at all. I wonder what their kids are learning about the roles of women and mothers. And if it was reversed, I would wonder what they were learning about the role of men and fathers. 

Imagine being a little kid, and growing up with the knowledge that if your mom gets upset with dad, or messes up the laundry, he can kick her out just like that, because mom is just a maid... what will these kids think a normal relationship looks like?


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

I don't think it's commendable but I do think it's clever. Would I recommend anyone be so cold to another? No. However there have been many men who have lost their kids and their disposable income and this is just one example where the situation was reversed. It just got me to think, that's all.

And of course we don't know the whole story. He might have been pretty cruel all along, in which case she got pretty screwed over. Or he might have actually been very good to her at first and she wanted to leave anyway and not try to work out their problems so he became proactive and laid the harsh reality of her situation on her.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I agree, OW. This man is selfish, and a woman doing the same thing would be, too. I think bringing a new partner in like that would be cruel for either sex.

This whole thing seems unhealthy, and regressive.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

JJXmomma said:


> I don't think it's commendable but I do think it's clever. Would I recommend anyone be so cold to another? No. However there have been many men who have lost their kids and their disposable income and this is just one example where the situation was reversed. It just got me to think, that's all.
> 
> And of course we don't know the whole story. He might have been pretty cruel all along, in which case she got pretty screwed over. Or he might have actually been very good to her at first and she wanted to leave anyway and not try to work out their problems so he became proactive and laid the harsh reality of her situation on her.


With either of those reasons for leaving, I would still consider this to be the wrong way to deal with it. Using child visitation to get your ex to do your domestic chores is not okay. They're growing up with both parents in the house, but they're also growing up with a seriously messed up power dynamic that may teach them all the wrong things about healthy relationships.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> With either of those reasons for leaving, I would still consider this to be the wrong way to deal with it. Using child visitation to get your ex to do your domestic chores is not okay. They're growing up with both parents in the house, but they're also growing up with a seriously messed up power dynamic that may teach them all the wrong things about healthy relationships.


They are learning that Might makes right. It is a limiting belief.

I hope that woman will come to her senses and leave that situation. She is in a sort of slavery there.


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

The whole story is sad indeed. Yes she basically became his slave. He probably had tons of resentment toward his mom. But as far as keeping both parents in the home, he figured out a way. 

I guess joint custody is best if the parents must split but there are drawbacks to that too. I can definitely attest to being caught in the middle of a war zone between my parents growing up. 

Here's a link that talks about the pros and cons of joint custody. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/divorced-children/200905/joint-physical-custody

Personally I would like to see more people try to make things work for the sake of their kids as long as there are no very justifiable reasons to leave like abuse.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> I see it as being pretty messed up, no matter which gender we're talking about.
> 
> It's one parent saying to the other, "If you want to see your kids more than every other weekend, you'll have to live with me and do all our cooking and cleaning. But don't worry, I'll give you an allowance." We don't even know why she left... maybe she didn't just want his money, maybe he was emotionally abusive and manipulative, who knows?
> 
> ...


Imagine being a little kid and never seeing your father because your mother kicked him out of the house and took all his money for "child support" that he couldn't pay, so he wound up in jail or dead.

Note that I don't think the solution in the referenced post is wonderful. It is a tragedy that anyone would feel the necessity to go to those lengths to protect himself and his child(ren) from the divorce/child-support industrial complex.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

technovelist said:


> Imagine being a little kid and never seeing your father because your mother kicked him out of the house and took all his money for "child support" that he couldn't pay, so he wound up in jail or dead.
> 
> Note that I don't think the solution in the referenced post is wonderful. It is a tragedy that anyone would feel the necessity to go to those lengths to protect himself and his child(ren) from the divorce/child-support industrial complex.


Yes, yes and for every man that was kept from his children, there's a man that found excuses not to see his kids. For every woman that's been kept from her kids, there's a woman that found excuses not to see her children.

There's enough misery around for everyone.


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

It's a disturbing story. What also strikes me as disturbing is the notion some derive enjoyment or satisfaction from it.


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

Haiku I don't think we derive enjoyment from it. I just find it interesting that here's an example where the tables are turned. When parents split it's horrible for most people involved, in most cases the kids and the biological father. This is just an example that helps us understand how it must feel if the mother loses the battle. It bothers us, makes us feel sympathetic in a way many don't feel when fathers get screwed over.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

technovelist said:


> Imagine being a little kid and never seeing your father because your mother kicked him out of the house and took all his money for "child support" that he couldn't pay, so he wound up in jail or dead.
> 
> Note that I don't think the solution in the referenced post is wonderful. It is a tragedy that anyone would feel the necessity to go to those lengths to protect himself and his child(ren) from the divorce/child-support industrial complex.


I don't think kids should grow up without their father either. I think parents have a responsibility to try to put their children first in a custody and child support dispute. I try to go by the saying, "Love your children more than you hate your ex."


I think this man protected himself from the divorce/child-support industrial complex (?) at the expense of the rest of his family.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

JJXmomma said:


> Haiku I don't think we derive enjoyment from it. I just find it interesting that here's an example where the tables are turned. When parents split it's horrible for most people involved, in most cases the kids and the biological father. This is just an example that helps us understand how it must feel if the mother loses the battle. It bothers us, makes us feel sympathetic in a way many don't feel when fathers get screwed over.


I do not know how the tables are turned. What this man is doing is only to serve his ego. He is not thinking of his kids. His main point is child support. He did not want to pay his ex girl friend for raising the kids. Instead he got her to raise them and to pay for it. He has only financial considerations.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

As disturbing as this story sounds, it happens all of the time in middle eastern countries. 

I don't believe that story happening in the US for one minute. It would have made headlines. "Man using kids to force baby momma into slavery". Um, don't think so. 

The only way i can believe a judge would rule the way he did is if she had a history of abandoning her kids, was a drug addict, or child abuser with a long criminal record. Seriously. Even DFACS is hesitant to take kids away from single mothers even when the mother is a totally useless human being.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Gender of the parties does not matter. It's wrong.

Using this kind of manipulation to turn the parent of your children into a salve, who lives under fear of being thrown out on the street at any time with no access to their children is horrible.

I doubt that the story is even real.

ETA: I would not be surprised if his children grow up to hate him for what he is doing.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Gender of the parties does not matter. It's wrong.
> 
> Using this kind of manipulation to turn the parent of your children into a salve, who lives under fear of being thrown out on the street at any time with no access to their children is horrible.
> 
> ...


They certainly will not respect him.


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

Okay so I have a question for Technovelist. It definitely is the case that everyone agrees that what he did was horrible. And I agree the whole story sounds pretty far fetched unless she had some major problems that would prove her an unworthy mother for her children. 

So whether this really happened or not, he gave her two choices. The first was to go out and get a job and pay child support and get visitation. She rejected that choice and decided to stay as his slave, in which he mistreated her by flaunting another woman at her. 

Now my question is, do you believe that married men today feel faced with this same choice? Let's say his wife his outright abusive to him. He may have to choose between leaving and paying child support and only seeing the kids for visitation, vs. staying in an abusive relationship so he can maintain daily contact with his children. To me the scenarios sound the same except no direct contracts and choices are stated out loud. 

I'm wondering if that is your point with posting this.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

JJXmomma said:


> Okay so I have a question for Technovelist. It definitely is the case that everyone agrees that what he did was horrible. And I agree the whole story sounds pretty far fetched unless she had some major problems that would prove her an unworthy mother for her children.
> 
> So whether this really happened or not, he gave her two choices. The first was to go out and get a job and pay child support and get visitation. She rejected that choice and decided to stay as his slave, in which he mistreated her by flaunting another woman at her.
> 
> ...


Yes, exactly. That's why I said "Ok, now reverse the sexes and see if you are as outraged."


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Duguesclin said:


> I do not know how the tables are turned. What this man is doing is only to serve his ego. He is not thinking of his kids. His main point is child support. He did not want to pay his ex girl friend for raising the kids. Instead he got her to raise them and to pay for it. He has only financial considerations.


Right, exactly as many women do when they spend their child support payments any way they want, with no accountability to the payer.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Ok, now reverse the sexes and see if you are as outraged.


It happens every day in this country with the genders reversed (not literally per the story, but close enough). I know two men that were totally abused by their ex's and their weapons were judges. I don't care what the sex of the noncustodial spouse is, it's just wrong to behave this way, but abuse against divorced fathers is institutionalized in this country. Now, in all fairness, some men deserve it, but many don't. In divorce court in the US a father is guilty, innocence proven or not. 

So, many times, I don't blame the guys who just "disappear".


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

The Middleman said:


> technovelist said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, now reverse the sexes and see if you are as outraged.
> ...


Very well stated. That just makes me sad. I was very close to both my parents when I was young but can never get back the years I lost with my father. Even with visitation, it was very hard to remain close, especially because my mom was also constantly bad mouthing him and blaming me for the little amount of time I spent with him as it was. And my father, although a poor match for my mom overall, did nothing but treat us both like gold when we were all together. Today I still don't feel nearly as close to him as I feel I should.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

JJXmomma said:


> Very well stated. That just makes me sad. I was very close to both my parents when I was young but can never get back the years I lost with my father. Even with visitation, it was very hard to remain close, especially because my mom was also constantly bad mouthing him and blaming me for the little amount of time I spent with him as it was. And my father, although a poor match for my mom overall, did nothing but treat us both like gold when we were all together. Today I still don't feel nearly as close to him as I feel I should.


I went through a similar experience growing up but the reverse happened, the victim was my mother. Unfortunately I never realized what really happened until both of them passed. Divorce (especially when it involves infidelity) is ugly and courts are the worst arbiter of justice. 

Still doesn't change the institutionalized bias in family courts today.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

I also grew up in a nasty divorce with my parents fighting over us. I hated hearing them talk crap about each other and making me choose between them. That's why when I divorced, we did our best to be civil and to split everything evenly. They're his kids just as much as they're mine!


On a side note, in light of this discussion, I'd like to point out some advice I see fairly often here on TAM...

Do you guys see any unfairness in the standard TAM advice given to a betrayed spouse - lawyer up, take the kids, take the house, take the money, and sue for child support? This always looked to me like using the kids and the money to punish the cheater, not acting in the best interest of the kids (assuming both parents are stable, of course).


----------



## Haiku (Apr 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> On a side note, in light of this discussion, I'd like to point out some advice I see fairly often here on TAM...
> 
> Do you guys see any unfairness in the standard TAM advice given to a betrayed spouse - lawyer up, take the kids, take the house, take the money, and sue for child support? This always looked to me like using the kids and the money to punish the cheater, not acting in the best interest of the kids (assuming both parents are stable, of course).


Yap! And it seems all too often the go to advice is to carpet bomb or jump to thermonuclear war.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> I also grew up in a nasty divorce with my parents fighting over us. I hated hearing them talk crap about each other and making me choose between them. That's why when I divorced, we did our best to be civil and to split everything evenly. They're his kids just as much as they're mine!
> 
> 
> On a side note, in light of this discussion, I'd like to point out some advice I see fairly often here on TAM...
> ...


This situation is analogous to the "prisoners' dilemma", in the sense that whoever acts the most reasonably is likely to get taken to the cleaners.

In my divorce, there were no kids, but the rest was the same, on my wife's side anyway. My offer to her was more generous than she would have gotten according to the state's guidelines, but she went for the jugular anyway. She actually got what I offered in the end, minus the unnecessary legal expenses.


----------



## JJXmomma (Feb 1, 2016)

I hope you all understand what I meant when I said at the beginning of this thread that it was a "good example," because I failed to clarify that better. I think the way he treated her was horrible, as I would certainly be devastated if treated that way. I meant that the OP was a good example of making a point. 

I think the solution to the one sidedness is actually very simple except it would take a major effort to become effective. If fathers were valued in a way comparable to mothers, then the laws wouldn't have the capacity to hurt fathers so much. Women would feel more internal pressure to work on their marriages if there were more shame in separating children from their fathers. 

This example made us all feel for her because we all naturally value the role of a mother and consider her happiness an important factor in the well being of children. If we felt similar about men, then men wouldn't get the short end of the stick so often.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

jld said:


> They certainly will not respect him.


And they will grow up thinking it's okay/normal for men to treat women this way.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> On a side note, in light of this discussion, I'd like to point out some advice I see fairly often here on TAM...
> 
> Do you guys see any unfairness in the standard TAM advice given to a betrayed spouse - lawyer up, take the kids, take the house, take the money, and sue for child support? This always looked to me like using the kids and the money to punish the cheater, not acting in the best interest of the kids (assuming both parents are stable, of course).


I believe in that advice, for an infidelity situation at least. There's nothing unfair about it. Whoever the cheater is, regardless of gender, they have proved that their sexual gratification is their priority over their family, children and integrity. They are selfish and dishonest and manipulative. It is in the best interests of the children to be raised by a better role model than that.

If the cheater would rather be with a lover than with their family, then why shouldn't that arrangement continue after the divorce?

You can give a bad parent equal time with the children, but that doesn't somehow transform them into a good parent.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I believe in that advice, for an infidelity situation at least. There's nothing unfair about it. Whoever the cheater is, regardless of gender, they have proved that their sexual gratification is their priority over their family, children and integrity. They are selfish and dishonest and manipulative. It is in the best interests of the children to be raised by a better role model than that.
> 
> If the cheater would rather be with a lover than with their family, then why shouldn't that arrangement continue after the divorce?
> 
> You can give a bad parent equal time with the children, but that doesn't somehow transform them into a good parent.


I don't think cheating means a person is a good or bad parent.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

The way some men cry so bitterly makes me want to laugh.

Stop knocking up crazy-ass women. Problem solved. You're welcome.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I believe in that advice, for an infidelity situation at least. There's nothing unfair about it. Whoever the cheater is, regardless of gender, they have proved that their sexual gratification is their priority over their family, children and integrity. They are selfish and dishonest and manipulative. It is in the best interests of the children to be raised by a better role model than that.
> 
> If the cheater would rather be with a lover than with their family, then why shouldn't that arrangement continue after the divorce?
> 
> You can give a bad parent equal time with the children, but that doesn't somehow transform them into a good parent.


I don't think it's accurate to say a cheater is automatically a bad parent. There have been lots of kids with normal, happy childhoods, who find out as adults that one of their parents had an affair in the past.

The cheater prioritizes their lover over their spouse, not always their whole family... where the children fit in depends on the situation. I think a person can be a crappy spouse and still be a fit parent.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

jld said:


> I don't think cheating means a person is a good or bad parent.


Couldn't disagree with you more, because I lived it.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> Stop knocking up crazy-ass women. Problem solved. You're welcome.


Man the issues and money the country could save if this happened and women stopped pumping out babies with dead beat dads.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> The way some men cry so bitterly makes me want to laugh.
> 
> Stop knocking up crazy-ass women. Problem solved. You're welcome.


Yes, and fortunately it's so easy to tell if a woman is crazy before you knock her up.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

The Middleman said:


> Couldn't disagree with you more, because I lived it.


It just depends on the situation. My XH had the opposite experience. His mom was the stable, responsible parent. She had an affair that contributed to the end of the very unhappy marriage (this happened when the kids were very young). His mom took great care of him and his siblings, and XH didn't even know that there had been an affair until 30 years later, when his brother found out by accident.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> I don't think kids should grow up without their father either. I think parents have a responsibility to try to put their children first in a custody and child support dispute. I try to go by the saying, "Love your children more than you hate your ex."
> 
> 
> I think this man protected himself from the divorce/child-support industrial complex (?) at the expense of the rest of his family.


Actually, I think you are wrong. He protected himself and his kids, but ruined the ex W. In exactly the same way many men get screwed in D and he even gave her a choice, which most men don't get.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

naiveonedave said:


> Actually, I think you are wrong. He protected himself and his kids, but ruined the ex W.


We'll just have to disagree on the subject of the kids, then. I believe they're learning some pretty bad lessons about power dynamics in a relationship. If they grow up seeing their mom sleeping in dad's bed but being her maid (while he brings in other women to teach her a lesson), what will they think a normal relationship looks like? Children tend to think of their parents' relationship as normal and correct, and they will likely mirror it.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> We'll just have to disagree on the subject of the kids, then. I believe they're learning some pretty bad lessons about power dynamics in a relationship. If they grow up seeing their mom sleeping in dad's bed but being her maid (while he brings in other women to teach her a lesson), what will they think a normal relationship looks like? Children tend to think of their parents' relationship as normal and correct, and they will likely mirror it.


This arrangement allows the kids to be with both parents all of the time, and they not being in a marriage, not fighting all the time. This is much better than most divorces that I am aware of. They could easily do some education about choices and consequences of bad choices.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

naiveonedave said:


> This arrangement allows the kids to be with both parents all of the time, and they not being in a marriage, not fighting all the time. This is much better than most divorces that I am aware of. They could easily do some education about choices and consequences of bad choices.


Sounds okay in theory, maybe. But having both parents isn't always better, and many parents fail to teach these lessons clearly, and instead leave the kids to draw their own conclusions with incomplete information (because the kids don't see everything that happens in the relationship).

They may not be fighting all the time, but I wonder if the kids are aware that dad can kick mom out and limit her visitation if they DO fight.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OW, it is very likely a made up story, an MRA wet dream.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> Sounds okay in theory, maybe. But having both parents isn't always better, and many parents fail to teach these lessons clearly, and instead leave the kids to draw their own conclusions with incomplete information (because the kids don't see everything that happens in the relationship).
> 
> They may not be fighting all the time, but I wonder if the kids are aware that dad can kick mom out and limit her visitation if they DO fight.


My opinion, based what was in the link, is that the exW got stuck with two crappy choices, based on her behavior. That is the lesson. Also, I think that in D, you already lose some 'respect' as parents, you are teaching the kids to run from problems. Granted with the big As (adultery, addiction, abuse), the kids need to learn why these led to D. Most D's are based on those, though, they are based on much more frivolous stuff.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

jld said:


> OW, it is very likely a made up story, an MRA wet dream.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree. But it hits home for me, because I watched my mother spend years playing housekeeper for her emotionally abusive ex-husband. He didn't pay her much past room and board, so if she had left, she wouldn't have been able to take care of her kids. So she stayed, until one day he beat the crap out of her. Then she quit, we couldn't pay the bills, and I was homeless at 15.

Therefore, my mind immediately goes to the dark side of this situation.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

The story is sick. Either sex doing it- Its wrong.

And frankly, the assumption that Women throw away all the child support money on their nails and shopping trips is another MRA BS line. Try being a single mother with kids and basic support and you would realize, it is not winning the lottery. If you have any reason to think the kids aren't being taken care of there are legal avenues for relief. You don't get to tell the other parent how to spend the money and to think one parent should, is a reflection of the unequal power levels in a relationship.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> OW, it is very likely a made up story, an MRA wet dream.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


perhaps, but I personally know several men who lived like slaves due to unrealistic alimony and CS and they didn't get to see their kids every day.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> I agree. But it hits home for me, because I watched my mother spend years playing housekeeper for her emotionally abusive ex-husband. He didn't pay her much past room and board, so if she had left, she wouldn't have been able to take care of her kids. *So she stayed, until one day he beat the crap out of her. Then she quit, we couldn't pay the bills, and I was homeless at 15.*
> 
> Therefore, my mind immediately goes to the dark side of this situation.


Very sorry to hear this, OW.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> perhaps, but I personally know several men who lived like slaves due to unrealistic alimony and CS and they didn't get to see their kids every day.


I doubt they were housekeepers to their exes, being introduced as such to subsequent partners.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Pluto2 said:


> The story is sick. Either sex doing it- Its wrong.
> 
> And frankly, the assumption that Women throw away all the child support money on their nails and shopping trips is another MRA BS line. Try being a single mother with kids and basic support and you would realize, it is not winning the lottery. *If you have any reason to think the kids aren't being taken care of there are legal avenues for relief. *You don't get to tell the other parent how to spend the money and to think one parent should, is a reflection of the unequal power levels in a relationship.


You are missing the point. In D, no one wins, just some lose more. The MRA crowd is sick of men losing worse virtually all the time.

You are fooling yourself if you think the bolded part is remotely doable, no $ and the state doesn't care


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> I doubt they were housekeepers to their exes, being introduced as such to subsequent partners.


no just an ATM machine that was forced to live in squalor, while, on a relative basis, the exW at least had a roof on her head and could eat reasonably well, while not having a job....

Sure, he treated her like crap with the arrangement they AGREED to, but her frivolous reason to break up is the root cause, not his behavior.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

naiveonedave said:


> no just an ATM machine that was forced to live in squalor, while, on a relative basis, the exW at least had a roof on her head and could eat reasonably well, while not having a job....
> 
> Sure, he treated her like crap with the arrangement they AGREED to, but her frivolous reason to break up is the root cause, not his behavior.


I didn't think the post stated the reason for the break up... It just said that she wanted child support after.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> I didn't think the post stated the reason for the break up... It just said that she wanted child support after.


No reason was given, so I am assuming she just wanted out. He didn't, that is obvious. Also, since it didn't list any of the As, I doubt her reason was much past frivolous. An assumption, but logical, given the little background we have.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> No reason was given, so I am assuming she just wanted out. He didn't, that is obvious. Also, since it didn't list any of the As, I doubt her reason was much past frivolous. An assumption, but logical, given the little background we have.


Again, I think the story is just made up.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

jld said:


> Again, I think the story is just made up.


It wasn't even the post author's story, it was "a guy he knew". :wink2:


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> You are missing the point. In D, no one wins, just some lose more. The MRA crowd is sick of men losing worse virtually all the time.
> 
> You are fooling yourself if you think the bolded part is remotely doable, no $ and the state doesn't care


There are worse things in this life than a smaller bank account after a divorce, like having to stay in a relationship with multiple A's (affair, abuse)and I agree that everyone's bank account is smaller after D. Staying in a relationship for the money is sick and demeaning to all involved.

But the facts remain that after a D, more women than men end up living below the poverty line, whether they get child support or not.

"Three months after divorce, 45.2 percent of custodial mothers not receiving child support were living below the poverty line, as were 38.0 percent of those receiving child support; non-custodial fathers, in contrast, exhibited poverty rates of 9.5 percent before paying child support and 10.5 percent after making those payments. At 16 to 18 months after divorce, 42.5 percent of custodial mothers not receiving child support lived in poverty, as did 35.4 percent of those receiving child support. In contrast, 10.5 percent of the non-custodial fathers (whether paying child support or not) lived in poverty." [stats from census]

So I have very little sympathy for a men who complain about having to support their children.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Pluto2 said:


> There are worse things in this life than a smaller bank account after a divorce, like having to stay in a relationship with multiple A's (affair, abuse)and I agree that everyone's bank account is smaller after D. Staying in a relationship for the money is sick and demeaning to all involved.
> 
> But the facts remain that after a D, more women than men end up living below the poverty line, whether they get child support or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> Pluto2 said:
> 
> 
> > There are worse things in this life than a smaller bank account after a divorce, like having to stay in a relationship with multiple A's (affair, abuse)and I agree that everyone's bank account is smaller after D. Staying in a relationship for the money is sick and demeaning to all involved.
> ...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Pluto2 said:


> naiveonedave said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get how you think being sadistic and demeaning (which the man was in this "story") could ever be equivalent to, or an acceptable alternative paying legitimate support.
> ...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

@Pluto2
Please read this post. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/317258-alimony-3.html#post14890338
Then tell me again why no men ever get screwed in D.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

naiveonedave said:


> Whatever. Your lack of empathy for men who get screwed in D is equally appalling. I never said what he did was 'right'. He didn't want to pay alimony, he wanted his kids and he is caring for them. it is equally appalling men go to jail because they can't afford the CS and alimony foisted on them by a corrupt system.


He didn't want to pay child support.

There was no question of alimony, they were never married.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> He didn't want to pay child support.
> 
> There was no question of alimony, they were never married.


This still makes no sense. He is paying 100% of their support now, plus paying his exW and, presumably all of her expenses. how is that not supporting his kids to the fullest? Much cheaper that they are all in one home than 2, don't you think?


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

naiveonedave said:


> This still makes no sense. He is paying 100% of their support now, plus paying his exW and, presumably all of her expenses. how is that not supporting his kids to the fullest? Much cheaper that they are all in one home than 2, don't you think?


Sure, it's cheaper. I guess I just see more at play here than financial concerns. Down the road, it's not the money the kids remember, it's the lessons they learned by example from their parents... lessons like how men and women should treat each other.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> Sure, it's cheaper. *I guess I just see more at play here than financial concerns*. Down the road, it's not the money the kids remember, it's the lessons they learned by example from their parents... lessons like how men and women should treat each other.


Unfortunately, sometimes it comes down to survival. It's all fine and dandy to say it's all about the kids, but the kids are forced into a secondary concern when the courts order literally all of the money handed from one parent to the other with no expectations or accountability on the recipient. Any parent who actively seeks, or accepts such an award is not interested in the children beyond their use as a tool to punish the other.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

samyeagar said:


> Unfortunately, sometimes it comes down to survival. It's all fine and dandy to say it's all about the kids, but the kids are forced into a secondary concern when the courts order literally all of the money handed from one parent to the other with no expectations or accountability on the recipient. Any parent who actively seeks, or accepts such an award is not interested in the children beyond their use as a tool to punish the other.


No doubt. The children should not be pawns in their parents' war, as they are here and in many other cases. That's why I'm such an advocate for equal division of assets and custody.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> No doubt. The children should not be pawns in their parents' war, as they are here and in many other cases. That's why I'm such an advocate for equal division of assets and custody.


This is true in principle. In practice, the laws are set up to not only allow children to be used as pawns, they actively encourage it.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> It just depends on the situation. My XH had the opposite experience. His mom was the stable, responsible parent. She had an affair that contributed to the end of the very unhappy marriage (this happened when the kids were very young). His mom took great care of him and his siblings, and XH didn't even know that there had been an affair until 30 years later, when his brother found out by accident.


I don't deny that every situation is different, and there are varying degrees of "Very Unhappy Marriages". One thing I believe in strongly is that an affair is no way to deal with a "Very Unhappy Marriage". It sets a long term tone of what is acceptable behavior for the kids, even when the kids become adults. A "better person" leaves a marriage first before becoming emotionally or physically attached to another partner. 

So I say one can go through the motions of being a good parent, but are they really a good parent if they send the signal to their children that it is OK to end a marriage by having sex outside that marriage? I think not.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> @Pluto2
> Please read this post. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/317258-alimony-3.html#post14890338
> Then tell me again why no men ever get screwed in D.


What I said was that I have little sympathy for men who complain about paying legal support for their children.

I don't have sympathy for any particular party in a divorce.
I have sympathy for the kids who have to watch their parents through a D.

And again, the original story is not a "defense" 
IMO it is defenseless.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

The story that is linked to in the OP is a lot like what marriage used to be like for women. When things went bad in the marriage, the man held the upper hand. Since by law, men got custody of all the assets and there was no alimony women in bad marriages ended up basically as forced house keepers. Most women would stay in such a situation because they would not walk away from their children.

The women of course could not go out and earn a living to support herself and fight the guy either.

The woman in the story linked to made the mistake of letting herself become so dependent on a man that he could do that to her and her children.

The story is a good warning to women that women today need to have the ability to support themselves and their children so that no man has this kind of upper hand on them.

The fact that the OP thinks that is is a good thing show how far we have not come. And it shows that dispite some trying to shut down feminism saying that everyting has been achieved and so it's not needed any more.. are either not aware of how fragile the progress is or are people like the MRA crowd who simply seek to take things back to how they were in the past.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> Sure, it's cheaper. I guess I just see more at play here than financial concerns. Down the road, it's not the money the kids remember, it's the lessons they learned by example from their parents... lessons like how men and women should treat each other.


So the mom just bolting is legit, I mean, just run from any problem at the drop of a hat. That is essentially the basis for the mom leaving, based on the limited info we have (assuming it is true). 

To me, the lesson the kids should learn from this is:
a) don't run from your problems
b) don't expect your ex to pay for everything - you will need to work in this world

How the dude treated his ex was horrible, but imo, better than most of the women on this thread are willing to admit. Because men are oft treated that way in divorce and they didn't even get a choice. She at least got a choice.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

naiveonedave said:


> So the mom just bolting is legit, I mean, just run from any problem at the drop of a hat. That is essentially the basis for the mom leaving, based on the limited info we have (assuming it is true).
> 
> To me, the lesson the kids should learn from this is:
> a) don't run from your problems
> ...


Yes, I believe a woman leaving an unhappy relationship with a man she's not married to (or even one that she is married to) is legit. I'm not comfortable making the same assumptions as you about her reasons for leaving. The fact that a guy who knows her ex didn't give her reasons means little to me. I doubt that the guys who know my XH have a good idea of why I left, either. And we have no idea of how much she was expecting him to pay, as we weren't told that either. Don't most states have a set formula to decide child support?

Personally, I do believe that some men get a raw deal in divorce, and that attempts like this to even the score only hurt their cause. But that's just my opinion.


----------

