# Sat in on a case this morning in family court



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

We represented the wife in a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and married 25 years but her husband cheated and is leaving her for a coworker 20 years younger than them. Being a no-fault state he probably assumed everything would be 50/50. We established mom as the primary caregiver so their petition for 50/50 custody got shot down right away. He ended up with every other weekend and one week per summer. There is also a provision of the divorce, approved by the court, that the new woman can't be alone with the children. No picking them up. No babysitting, etc. That has an expiration of 5 years where the youngest child will be 18 and can make their own decisions. We won half his 401K, 100% of the house, 60% of his salary for 5 years (alimony and child support), and the judge stated explicitly that he thought this man was a degenerate and was making the most severe ruling in this case that the law will allow. Had this just been a case where it was an amicable split with no infidelity, abuse, etc. then the division would have been much more equal. I advise people getting divorced as well as newbie attorneys that are learning the business that infidelity and/or abuse still makes a difference even in no-fault states. The real reason behind no-fault is so that the filing party doesn't have to prove any reason for filing but bad behavior by one spouse can, and does, affect the divorce outcome. This was not my case, it was one of our younger attorney's 2nd case ever. I just consulted and mentored her. She was thrilled to have done so well for her client. I'll admit that whenever I see a case like this I take a lot of satisfaction in seeing the offending party get reamed by the court.

I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> We represented the wife in a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and married 25 years but her husband cheated and is leaving her for a coworker 20 years younger than them. Being a no-fault state he probably assumed everything would be 50/50. We established mom as the primary caregiver so their petition for 50/50 custody got shot down right away. He ended up with every other weekend and one week per summer. There is also a provision of the divorce, approved by the court, that the new woman can't be alone with the children. No picking them up. No babysitting, etc. That has an expiration of 5 years where the youngest child will be 18 and can make their own decisions. We won half his 401K, 100% of the house, 60% of his salary for 5 years (alimony and child support), and the judge stated explicitly that he thought this man was a degenerate and was making the most severe ruling in this case that the law will allow. Had this just been a case where it was an amicable split with no infidelity, abuse, etc. then the division would have been much more equal. I advise people getting divorced as well as newbie attorneys that are learning the business that infidelity and/or abuse still makes a difference even in no-fault states. The real reason behind no-fault is so that the filing party doesn't have to prove any reason for filing but bad behavior by one spouse can, and does, affect the divorce outcome. This was not my case, it was one of our younger attorney's 2nd case ever. I just consulted and mentored her. She was thrilled to have done so well for her client. I'll admit that whenever I see a case like this I take a lot of satisfaction in seeing the offending party get reamed by the court.
> 
> I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


Excuse me. I only have a middle school degree.
What is a no-fault state???

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> We represented the wife in a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and married 25 years but her husband cheated and is leaving her for a coworker 20 years younger than them. Being a no-fault state he probably assumed everything would be 50/50. We established mom as the primary caregiver so their petition for 50/50 custody got shot down right away. He ended up with every other weekend and one week per summer. There is also a provision of the divorce, approved by the court, that the new woman can't be alone with the children. No picking them up. No babysitting, etc. That has an expiration of 5 years where the youngest child will be 18 and can make their own decisions. We won half his 401K, 100% of the house, 60% of his salary for 5 years (alimony and child support), and the judge stated explicitly that he thought this man was a degenerate and was making the most severe ruling in this case that the law will allow. Had this just been a case where it was an amicable split with no infidelity, abuse, etc. then the division would have been much more equal. I advise people getting divorced as well as newbie attorneys that are learning the business that infidelity and/or abuse still makes a difference even in no-fault states. The real reason behind no-fault is so that the filing party doesn't have to prove any reason for filing but bad behavior by one spouse can, and does, affect the divorce outcome. This was not my case, it was one of our younger attorney's 2nd case ever. I just consulted and mentored her. She was thrilled to have done so well for her client. I'll admit that whenever I see a case like this I take a lot of satisfaction in seeing the offending party get reamed by the court.
> 
> I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


It would be interesting to see if his 20 year younger co-worker is still interested in him when he only make 35% of what he did.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It still sounds like a pretty good outcome - for him. If your client is happy with it, that's what matters.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Curious...How would the judge know about infidelity in a no fault?
My wife and I are filing a no-fault but she cheated 5 times that I can prove.
Things are working well for me at this time, but she has slowed things down.


----------



## SentHereForAReason (Oct 25, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> We represented the wife in a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and married 25 years but her husband cheated and is leaving her for a coworker 20 years younger than them. Being a no-fault state he probably assumed everything would be 50/50. We established mom as the primary caregiver so their petition for 50/50 custody got shot down right away. He ended up with every other weekend and one week per summer. There is also a provision of the divorce, approved by the court, that the new woman can't be alone with the children. No picking them up. No babysitting, etc. That has an expiration of 5 years where the youngest child will be 18 and can make their own decisions. We won half his 401K, 100% of the house, 60% of his salary for 5 years (alimony and child support), and the judge stated explicitly that he thought this man was a degenerate and was making the most severe ruling in this case that the law will allow. Had this just been a case where it was an amicable split with no infidelity, abuse, etc. then the division would have been much more equal. I advise people getting divorced as well as newbie attorneys that are learning the business that infidelity and/or abuse still makes a difference even in no-fault states. The real reason behind no-fault is so that the filing party doesn't have to prove any reason for filing but bad behavior by one spouse can, and does, affect the divorce outcome. This was not my case, it was one of our younger attorney's 2nd case ever. I just consulted and mentored her. She was thrilled to have done so well for her client. I'll admit that whenever I see a case like this I take a lot of satisfaction in seeing the offending party get reamed by the court.
> 
> I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


Was she primary caregiver in terms of being the person that spent the most time with the kids or was she a SAHM? I was pretty much the go to parent on most things but it was very blatant in my situation and that's why Friend of the Court wouldn't recommend anything but 50/50 and lawyer said I would have to prove some serious stuff in order to get more than that. 

Where I'm hoping the infidelity helps me is with alimony and child support but other than that, it looks like it's going to be pretty even up but who knows. And because of that and me just wanting to get out from the infidelity I have been working agreements out with my STBXW out of court, like asset split, equity, 50/50 schedule, etc.


----------



## sa58 (Feb 26, 2018)

I wonder if she had been the one cheating and
leaving him for a younger coworker. What the results 
would have been ?


----------



## SentHereForAReason (Oct 25, 2017)

sa58 said:


> I wonder if she had been the one cheating and
> leaving him for a younger coworker. What the results
> would have been ?


My sentiments ....


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

VermiciousKnid said:


> We represented the wife in a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and married 25 years but her husband cheated and is leaving her for a coworker 20 years younger than them. Being a no-fault state he probably assumed everything would be 50/50. We established mom as the primary caregiver so their petition for 50/50 custody got shot down right away. He ended up with every other weekend and one week per summer. There is also a provision of the divorce, approved by the court, that the new woman can't be alone with the children. No picking them up. No babysitting, etc. That has an expiration of 5 years where the youngest child will be 18 and can make their own decisions. We won half his 401K, 100% of the house, 60% of his salary for 5 years (alimony and child support), and the judge stated explicitly that he thought this man was a degenerate and was making the most severe ruling in this case that the law will allow. Had this just been a case where it was an amicable split with no infidelity, abuse, etc. then the division would have been much more equal. I advise people getting divorced as well as newbie attorneys that are learning the business that infidelity and/or abuse still makes a difference even in no-fault states. The real reason behind no-fault is so that the filing party doesn't have to prove any reason for filing but bad behavior by one spouse can, and does, affect the divorce outcome. This was not my case, it was one of our younger attorney's 2nd case ever. I just consulted and mentored her. She was thrilled to have done so well for her client. I'll admit that whenever I see a case like this I take a lot of satisfaction in seeing the offending party get reamed by the court.
> 
> I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


*The above should be added either as its own sticky or it should be included with maybe some other sticky at the end of an existing sticky. This is good advice and why standard evidence and morals are important.*

I want to thank the OP for sharing.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

While I do 'not' disagree with the findings and judgements, this case sound appealable.

He should file an appeal. This goes aginst past practice, methinks.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

60% of his salary? I disagree with that, even in infidelity. That makes the guy basically her slave. 

How can he afford to live?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

StillSearching said:


> Curious...How would the judge know about infidelity in a no fault?
> My wife and I are filing a no-fault but she cheated 5 times that I can prove.
> Things are working well for me at this time, but she has slowed things down.


Yeah, that is a good question. It would seem to me his attorney was dipstick that didn't know his backside from a hole in the ground. I would think any mildly competent attorney would have objected to his ex bringing up the infidelity or age of his AP in court proceedings. I would also think there might be grounds to go after the judge for not only allowing it but taking it into consideration in their ruling.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> We represented the wife in a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and married 25 years but her husband cheated and is leaving her for a coworker 20 years younger than them. Being a no-fault state he probably assumed everything would be 50/50. We established mom as the primary caregiver so their petition for 50/50 custody got shot down right away. He ended up with every other weekend and one week per summer. There is also a provision of the divorce, approved by the court, that the new woman can't be alone with the children. No picking them up. No babysitting, etc. That has an expiration of 5 years where the youngest child will be 18 and can make their own decisions. We won half his 401K, 100% of the house, 60% of his salary for 5 years (alimony and child support), and the judge stated explicitly that he thought this man was a degenerate and was making the most severe ruling in this case that the law will allow. Had this just been a case where it was an amicable split with no infidelity, abuse, etc. then the division would have been much more equal. I advise people getting divorced as well as newbie attorneys that are learning the business that infidelity and/or abuse still makes a difference even in no-fault states. The real reason behind no-fault is so that the filing party doesn't have to prove any reason for filing but bad behavior by one spouse can, and does, affect the divorce outcome. This was not my case, it was one of our younger attorney's 2nd case ever. I just consulted and mentored her. She was thrilled to have done so well for her client. I'll admit that whenever I see a case like this I take a lot of satisfaction in seeing the offending party get reamed by the court.
> 
> I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


A sad story where the bad guy gets what's coming to him, and the good guy gets the better end of the deal!


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Evinrude58 said:


> 60% of his salary? I disagree with that, even in infidelity. That makes the guy basically her slave.
> 
> How can he afford to live?


He should have thought of that before he cheated on his FAMILY.

Maybe his new gf won't mind him moving in with her and paying for his share of the bills?

After all, he is such a catch! :rofl:


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

So it’s a no-fault state, but infidelity was the main issue in determining alimony and such? If this is true, why is it able to be used when the guy cheats, but not the other way? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lady getting shafted this badly when she in a cheater. Seems strange.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> He should have thought of that before he cheated on his FAMILY.
> 
> Maybe his new gf won't mind him moving in with her and paying for his share of the bills?
> 
> After all, he is such a catch! :rofl:


yes, but....

This is how people turn to crime. Assuming he makes decent money, say 100K, he now makes 40K before taxes, practically poverty level. The ex wife, who now has to take a job, probably makes $100K between working, alimony and child support. Hardly near equitable. I don't feel bad for the guy, but you are essentially putting him in the poor house. Lets say he only makes $40K, now he is in poverty. I also am not sure about how taxes work, so it actually could be a lot worse for him. This is not really what no-fault was supposed to do. Neither party should be in the poor house (or both should, I guess). The actual particulars would be interesting. As someone upthread said, he is now her indentured servant.

You really need a similar case where the primary care giver is the cheater, and compare.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> yes, but....
> 
> This is how people turn to crime. Assuming he makes decent money, say 100K, he now makes 40K before taxes, practically poverty level. The ex wife, who now has to take a job, probably makes $100K between working, alimony and child support. Hardly near equitable. I don't feel bad for the guy, but you are essentially putting him in the poor house. Lets say he only makes $40K, now he is in poverty. I also am not sure about how taxes work, so it actually could be a lot worse for him. This is not really what no-fault was supposed to do. Neither party should be in the poor house (or both should, I guess). The actual particulars would be interesting. As someone upthread said, he is now her indentured servant.
> 
> You really need a similar case where the primary care giver is the cheater, and compare.


So dad should not go to the poor house, but his children should be deeply affected by the lower income (wife gets only 50% to share with the children, while he gets 50% to spend on himself.)


----------



## jferg0212 (Mar 18, 2018)

She’s filing for a no fault divorce. While I have no proof of infidelity I do have proof of emotional cheating and secret meetings with a EX. What should I do? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

jferg0212 said:


> She’s filing for a no fault divorce. While I have no proof of infidelity I do have proof of emotional cheating and secret meetings with a EX. What should I do?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Take it like a man......


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> So dad should not go to the poor house, but his children should be deeply affected by the lower income (wife gets only 50% to share with the children, while he gets 50% to spend on himself.)


I guess the wife has no job and doesn’t want to work?
Assuming she does, she gets 100% of hers and 60% of his.... wow, that’s fair?


----------



## Johann Sebastian (Mar 20, 2018)

It sounds a little one sided to me. In the state where I practice, infidelity can be considered as a factor in alimony but not property division. And it is a small factor at that; most of the alimony calculus is need vs. ability to pay. It typically does not come into play in child custody unless you can show that the paramour will pose some kind of danger to the child, e.g. history of child abuse or serious drug use.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> So dad should not go to the poor house, but his children should be deeply affected by the lower income (wife gets only 50% to share with the children, while he gets 50% to spend on himself.)


except she now has to have a job, assuming she was a SAHM. her pot will be much larger than his. Your 50%/50% isn't correct, it is closer to 50% to him and 100% to her, given that she is now working. This is how it works when the non-SAHspouse gets fried in court. The SAHspouse enters the work force, making less than the other spouse, plus CS, plus alimony. I have seen this play out several times. If he was making $40K/year, he ends up with $16K/year (below poverty) and she ends up with $24K + her new job wage. Easily $40+K. He is below the poverty line, she likely isn't, assuming 2 kids.

This is not to say that the reverse never happens.


----------



## TDSC60 (Dec 8, 2011)

Evinrude58 said:


> So it’s a no-fault state, but infidelity was the main issue in determining alimony and such? If this is true, why is it able to be used when the guy cheats, but not the other way? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lady getting shafted this badly when she in a cheater. Seems strange.


Not that strange. Even in no-fault states where infidelity is a consideration. The previous roll of the betrayed spouse is considered. If she/he has been a stay-at-home parent while the cheater was the primary bread winner, the BS con and often times will get spousal support for a number of years to give them the opportunity to train for and establish a career.

I've seen a cheating wife who is the primary bread winner get hammered in court.

But not to this extent.

Truthfully, most of the time it is up to the judge, but male judges seem to go easier on women that men no matter which is the cheater. A man's natural inclination is to protect a woman.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams (Nov 23, 2013)

My best friends husband had an affair. She decided to give him another chance. Months later...she decide to divorce. He had lost his job...they lost their home. In the divorce...he got half of her pension. She got NOTHING.

Just saying that you never know how things are going to turn out. I never DREAMED he would get half of her pension....


----------



## katies (May 19, 2015)

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I never DREAMED he would get half of her pension....


this is how it works in my state as well. I have the pension. He does not. He makes 3 times what I do.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams (Nov 23, 2013)

katies said:


> this is how it works in my state as well. I have the pension. He does not. He makes 3 times what I do.


yes she is also in your profession.....

what a crock

She told me she is going work one day past when he dies...lol bless her heart I cant blame her a bit


----------



## jewels465 (Nov 20, 2014)

jferg0212 said:


> She’s filing for a no fault divorce. While I have no proof of infidelity I do have proof of emotional cheating and secret meetings with a EX. What should I do?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Secret meetings with an ex sounds like proof to me. I would say try to get more evidence somehow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jferg0212 (Mar 18, 2018)

jewels465 said:


> Secret meetings with an ex sounds like proof to me. I would say try to get more evidence somehow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I have emails, texts and pictures. But really no proof of sexual contact as it was never mentioned. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

If she was a SAHW and mom, and that was their original agreement before he cheated, I don't see why she should have to go to work after he cheated, just so he doesn't have to suffer the financial outcome of his stupid, selfish decision.

If she decides to work, the courts can reassess the amount (of alimony, not CS) she receives, to keep it "fair."


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I guess if there's a point to the thread it's that if this happens to you, don't assume that you're screwed in divorce if it's a no-fault state. Infidelity, or other forms of abuse, most certainly do matter. Civil/family law is not near as restricted as criminal law. The judge has a lot of leeway. Never assume you're screwed, and lawyer up. If you're the cheater we'll still represent you we just won't like you.


Judges have a great deal of leeway but it can be a double edged sword as I think they have too much leeway and free reign in the courtroom. In my state though it's no fault infidelity MAY be used in factoring property/alimony division. On day one the judge announces he refuses to hear any testimony or evidence in regards to possible infidelity claims. So in essence he already made up his mind in regards to division before he heard or have any information regarding the divorce. Because he had so much leeway you don't have much ground to appeal. Considering I had texts, pictures, a video and the om willing to testify in regards to her affair. I thought his ruling sucked.....

Most judges seems to follow repeated patterns in divorce and most lawyers in a given area know almost immediately how a settlement will go once they know who the judge is, at least in my area. It comes down to the luck of the draw in which judge you get. Many divorce lawyers just don't have "will" to fight for a client with a judge for fear of getting on the bad side of a judge in future cases. 

Glad you got a favorable settlement for your client.


----------



## ABHale (Jan 3, 2016)

We have seen where the SAHM cheats and the husband is faithful and the same outcome in the courts. The WW got everything she wanted.


----------



## Cromer (Nov 25, 2016)

That wouldn't have happened in my state. Parents are presumed to have 50/50 custody unless shown to be unfit, and having a younger partner doesn't qualify on its own. Plus, if he married his partner then all bets off about the limits on visitation, again at least in my state. His lawyer must've been ass. This reeks of appeal.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

The only part I disagree with is enjoining the girlfriend to essentially "stay away from the kids" which seems more punitive than based on safety issues for the kids. The chick may be a pediatrician for all we know.
No fault goes to grounds for divorce which basically narrows divorce to one ground; "I (we) don't want to be married anymore". Its a divorce by mutual consent. States may allow for both fault-based divorce and no-fault divorce. Child support, often determined by formula, type alimony, property division and other "settlement" issues are addressed differently than the "no fault" provisions in the law.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

honcho said:


> Judges have a great deal of leeway but it can be a double edged sword as I think they have too much leeway and free reign in the courtroom. In my state though it's no fault infidelity MAY be used in factoring property/alimony division. On day one the judge announces he refuses to hear any testimony or evidence in regards to possible infidelity claims. So in essence he already made up his mind in regards to division before he heard or have any information regarding the divorce. Because he had so much leeway you don't have much ground to appeal. Considering I had texts, pictures, a video and the om willing to testify in regards to her affair. I thought his ruling sucked.....
> 
> Most judges seems to follow repeated patterns in divorce and most lawyers in a given area know almost immediately how a settlement will go once they know who the judge is, at least in my area. It comes down to the luck of the draw in which judge you get. Many divorce lawyers just don't have "will" to fight for a client with a judge for fear of getting on the bad side of a judge in future cases.
> 
> Glad you got a favorable settlement for your client.


The reality is that most trials are just for show and the verdict is already known beforehand.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I think the real take away message here is not so much about infidelity but about the important of not supporting an able-bodied adult for years and years and not being the only breadwinner. 

If you support an uneducated SAHM/SAHD with no marketable job skills and no personal retirement account of their own for years, this can happen even if there is no infidelity and no bitter judge with an ax To grind. 

In today's world where divorce is just simply a common reality, it is downright irresponsible to completely support an able-bodied adult and have them forgo any form or marketable job training/education.

This really isn't an infidelity issue. That judge may have had a personal ax to grind and may have hit him with few more percentage points than necessary, but that H could have been stuck with hefty CS and SS even if she had been the cheater.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> If she was a SAHW and mom, and that was their original agreement before he cheated, I don't see why she should have to go to work after he cheated, just so he doesn't have to suffer the financial outcome of his stupid, selfish decision.
> 
> If she decides to work, the courts can reassess the amount (of alimony, not CS) she receives, to keep it "fair."


utter non-sense. By default, in D all prior agreements are null and void. What if the H really didn't want a SAHM? I would think there is and should be reasonable expectation by the court that both spouses work after the D. 

I get the guy is totally wrong by cheating. Making him essentially an indentured servant to his exW, who chooses not to work is also wrong.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> I think the real take away message here is not so much about infidelity but about the important of not supporting an able-bodied adult for years and years and not being the only breadwinner.
> 
> If you support an uneducated SAHM/SAHD with no marketable job skills and no personal retirement account of their own for years, this can happen even if there is no infidelity and no bitter judge with an ax To grind.
> 
> ...


I agree, I don't see karma anywhere in this, only a judge using his platform to offer their personal opinion. But the ruling itself is pretty close to the standard. I think its just how it goes when someone makes a lot and someone makes a little or nothing. The custody he was granted is also standard, and honestly speaking pretty sure his twenty year younger mistress doesn't want anything to do with his kids anyway. Will karma come later? Time will tell...but these relationships don't usually last, I know from personal experience.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Araucaria said:


> If she was a SAHW and mom, *and that was their original agreement before he cheated*, I don't see why she should have to go to work after he cheated, just so he doesn't have to suffer the financial outcome of his stupid, selfish decision.
> 
> If she decides to work, the courts can reassess the amount (of alimony, not CS) she receives, to keep it "fair."





naiveonedave said:


> utter non-sense. By default, in D all prior agreements are null and void. _What if the H really didn't want a SAHM?_ I would think there is and should be reasonable expectation by the court that both spouses work after the D.
> 
> I get the guy is totally wrong by cheating. Making him essentially an indentured servant to his exW, who chooses not to work is also wrong.


You must have missed reading the bolded part in my post.

Yeah, so all promises made before D are null and void. Nobody has to have any integrity or keep any of the promises made to their spouse and children before the D. Just blow everybody's life up. Keep blowing them up. Blow up the children's lives, who didn't ask to come into the world. They didn't ask to have a cheating parent who breaks promises and ruins their sense of stability. Their cheating parent's genitals and "feeling in love" are more important than anything or anyone else in the world Most courts will support the cheating parent's right to blow everyone's lives up and not keep any promises to their spouse and children.

Typing that gave me a sick feeling. The children get punished the most in divorce, when some of the impact can be mitigated. The courts could make sure the cheating parent feels more of the financial impact, so the children don't have to suffer the trauma of suddenly becoming poor as well as losing the regular company of their mother, who had always been there to wake them up in the morning, make their breakfast, greet them as they walked in the door after school and go to all their activities. If she has a full time job, she won't be as available to them. So they lose their dad, they lose their home, and move into public housing, or a trailer, and then they also lose the presence of their mom in many areas where she used to be present.

Yeah, that is "fair." They don't deserve to have a stable life. The dad deserves to have as little impact on his pocket book as possible. Let the kids pay the price, so he can have his cake and eat it too.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> You must have missed reading the bolded part in my post.
> 
> Yeah, so all promises made before D are null and void. Nobody has to have any integrity or keep any of the promises made to their spouse and children before the D. Just blow everybody's life up. Keep blowing them up. Blow up the children's lives, who didn't ask to come into the world. They didn't ask to have a cheating parent who breaks promises and ruins their sense of stability. Their cheating parent's genitals and "feeling in love" are more important than anything or anyone else in the world Most courts will support the cheating parent's right to blow everyone's lives up and not keep any promises to their spouse and children.
> 
> ...


I do agree the children lose in D. And in the OP, my guess is the children will never forgive their father. It is a shame what D does to a family, especially kids. The question is how much is enough. The reality is there isn't going to be enough income to support two residences, unless the SAHS can get income nearly equal to the exS. NOTE that I am not using H or W, that is irrelevant. 

you are totally missing my point. Since we don't have any details, I will give you the two scenarios that are kind of opposite ends of the spectrum:

1) typical lower income family with one working spouse:
$40K/year income. they D, SAHS gets 60% and goes to work. SAHS income = $40K*60%+$20K or more = $44K. working spouse gets $40K*40% = 16K. Totally not fair to working spouse, as they are below the poverty line, SAHS now has to work (awwww pity party), but even with 2 or 3 kids isn't below poverty line.

2) rich family, one working spouse
$150K/yr income, they D, SAHS gets 60% and goes to work. SAHS income = $150*60%+20K = $110K, likely more. working spouse gets $150*40% = 60K. Probably closer to fair, though still not very fair. Especially since the working spouse has very little parental time and still ~1/2 the income of the other spouse.

This HAS ZERO TO DO WITH HUSBAND OR WIFE, FLIP THE GENDERS AND THE MATH IS THE SAME. D should never end up in situation 1, ever. Situation 1 used to happen all the time. without the income data from the OP, we don't no if it closer to case 1 or 2.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

Ynot said:


> The reality is that most trials are just *for show* and the verdict is already known beforehand.


You mean for money.
Everyone has their hand in the till.
I say get the state out of the marriage! NOW!


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

StillSearching said:


> You mean for money.
> Everyone has their hand in the till.
> I say get the state out of the marriage! NOW!


While I want to agree with you, how do you propose the bolded statement? Divorcing people, especially the cheater, want to walk away with as much as possible to they can use it with their new found luurve, while leaving the faithful spouse and children destitute. Who will protect the BS and children who are the victims of a proven self centered, selfish person?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

OUCH!!!! In a good way and in the right direction this time!!

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

@Araucaria - the problem with divorce is that when money goes from supporting one household to two there will always be a loss in lifestyle for the kids. I don't think there is really a "fair" way to handle it that will benefit the kids as much as if they were in a united family. So then the question is should the cheating spouse be punished? While it's great in theory all that happens is that lawyers have to get more involved and then more of the family's assets go to legal costs instead of the parents to support the kids. So a no fault divorce is often the best choice to preserve the most assets for the family and their kids, even though by definition there will be less to go around. It's a crap situation no matter how it goes down and I'm not sure there is a good solution. In this case, while the cheater got punished I think the judge went overboard and abused his power especially considering that the many divorces are due to cheating so this situation isn't unique.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> While I want to agree with you, how do you propose the bolded statement? Divorcing people, especially the cheater, want to walk away with as much as possible to they can use it with their new found luurve, while leaving the faithful spouse and children destitute. Who will protect the BS and children who are the victims of a proven self centered, selfish person?


Lots of bad assumptions there. People cheat because they have a reason to cheat. They divorce for some of the same reasons. I don't know of any studies that show "people who are divorcing want to walk away with as much as is possible so they can use it with their new found lurve" Can you provide a link? Otherwise, this is just an emotional argument against something with no basis in fact. 
I am sure that MOST people actually intend to be as responsible as possible when it comes to child support and custody. Their intentions may be clouded by emotion, which is why the state often steps in. One of the primary complaints that many have (mostly men) is that the state mandates how much they have to provide and then their are no controls placed on how it is used. So, in some instances money is taken from the non-custodial at a level that punishes them. It is beyond their ability to provide (such as job loss) and adversely impacts their life, in direct opposition to the law. Then that money is handed over to the custodial parent who can spend it however they desire. 
I know a woman who was married to a brain surgeon. They divorced. She was awarded thousands of dollars per month in spousal and child support. Rather than spend the money on the kids or save it for their college, she decided it would be better for her to live on the golf course in the manner to which she had become accustomed. She also had breast implants, lip implants, a face lift and had been thinking of butt implants. As the alimony and support dwindled over time due to expiration and emancipation, she suddenly realized she could no longer afford the country club life any longer. 
The purpose of no fault divorce was to eliminate the emotion. Unfortunately this judge allowed his emotional reaction to override the rule of law. If I was the wife's attorney I would be very wary of the coming appeal. And if I was the judge I would be worried about being disbarred or impeached for violating the rule of law.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Cromer said:


> That wouldn't have happened in my state. Parents are presumed to have 50/50 custody unless shown to be unfit, and having a younger partner doesn't qualify on its own. Plus, if he married his partner then all bets off about the limits on visitation, again at least in my state. His lawyer must've been ass. This reeks of appeal.


It can and probably does happen in your state too. Because of the leeway judges have they can easily go against state guidelines because they arent hard rules. Judgement range wildly depending on local jurisdiction. In my county weekend only for dad's is the norm, yet you go one county over and 50/50 is the norm. The guidelines have too much wiggle room for judges interpretation.

Appeals are expensive and often a futile effort. I've been down the appeal road in my state and in this state all that happens is a 3 judge panel looks at the case/decision and either recommends or denies the request, they make no ruling or offer no opinion but if they approve the appeal all that happens is the case gets kicked back to the original judge for the judge to review the ruling again and make changes "if needed". Most judges will not change the original ruling because judges are "never wrong" so after the expense and effort now what, appeal the appeal? By this time you've wasted countless thousands of dollars and at least a year of time. It make's you broke and wears you out emotionally. 

In the world of divorce and most civil cases for that matter judges and Lil kings of their courtroom and have very little accountability for rulings.


----------



## Peter/ (Aug 27, 2017)

Evinrude58 said:


> 60% of his salary? I disagree with that, even in infidelity. That makes the guy basically her slave.
> 
> How can he afford to live?



Depends on his salary, basic $50,000 means he'd get $20,000 but if he is earning $200,000 he'd still get $80,000 I'd be more concerned about the ruling on the 401K.

I also disagree with the court ruling 5yrs no alone contact with kids once they are over 18.

I am against cheaters but there are times when the court over steps the lines of decency, 100% of the house + all the extras means she's sitting pretty for the rest of her life, sell up in a couple of years and retire in Mexico.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Sorry, I've been really busy lately. To add a bit more context to this case.

- The wife is a SAHM. 60% of the husbands salary is really not that much considering when he was living with them probably a higher % went toward their care/expenses. Just because he left her doesn't mean he's not still financially responsible for the entire family. He is.

- The house is hers because it's the primary residence and where the children still live. His lawyer petitioned to force a sale of the home but considering the ages and # of children, that, as expected, was denied.

- We paid for a PI to do a full background check of the woman he now legally resides with (his AP). She was fired from a daycare several years ago after a child abuse accusation was made against her. That was more than enough to get her banned from being alone with any of their children until they're 18.

-As for 50/50 custody the father was seeking, that was, of course, shot down because due to his work, he wasn't with them 50% of the time anyway. We were able to prove, with documentation, that he really only spent the equivalent amount of time that we proposed which was every other weekend and 1 week per summer. I'll bet anyone $100 he doesn't even make it all the times he was awarded. He's a technology executive with a company that sells tech solutions to airports. He travels the globe extensively. Definitely not suitable for 50% custody.

Again, the moral of the story is never assume you're screwed or that infidelity doesn't matter. Family court judges have much more leeway and go through a lot of extra training that other judges don't plus they have access to CPS and other family welfare agencies to assist them with rulings.

We actually wanted more out of this but the wife was thrilled that her and the kids' lives will not change much. Really just the loss of a degenerate/husband and father.

I agree with the poster that thinks the new girlfriend won't stick around long now that his personal net worth will be, all tolled, about 30% of what it was.

All I can say is actions have consequences. You can assure that by retaining a good lawyer. As I've said before LAWYER UP EARLY if you're going through something like this. DON'T go it alone and DON'T agree to mediation unless you were the cheater. Mediation is a great deal for cheaters. Not so much for the betrayed.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

VermiciousKnid said:


> - The wife is a SAHM. 60% of the husbands salary is really not that much considering when he was living with them probably a higher % went toward their care/expenses. Just because he left her doesn't mean he's not still financially responsible for the entire family. He is.
> 
> - The house is hers because it's the primary residence and where the children still live. His lawyer petitioned to force a sale of the home but considering the ages and # of children, that, as expected, was denied.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the court ruled logically and appropriately. It wasn't all bad news for the ex husband. He got his wish for a "no fault" 50/50 split; in respect to his 401k.


----------



## Taxman (Dec 21, 2016)

I think the first remark out of each client's mouth, whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant, is that this is a completely no fault country, doesn't that mean that we divide everything down the middle? Sometimes that statement is hopeful, sometime it is said bitterly. The truth is a good lawyer can make all of the difference. Family court judges want and demand a lot of information. I have been party to actions where one or the other partner would be sitting there with a smug look on their face thinking that none of their malfeasance will be entering the courtroom, only to hear the judge take into account everything that was done pre-split. I had one woman go absolutely ballistic. Her solicitor could not restrain her, and she said that she was told that EVERYTHING is 50/50, so how the f**k could this be entered into the record? The judge calmly explained that he considers all evidence in order to ensure that children are given proper care, love and attention. He then looked at her, and asked, "How do you propose to care and nurture these children when you are off galivanting from one bar to the next seven nights a week?" She was dumbfounded. Ma'am, were you aware that there was an investigator following you for weeks? But infidelity shouldn't figure into your decision, does it? Well not in the area of divorce, HOWEVER, my job is to determine who is the better custodial parent, and your history indicates that you would be a poor choice. I am granting full custody to the father. You have one evening per week, and one week in the summer. You do not get any holidays. As a consequence, I am awarding child support to your ex-husband, She starts getting all righteous, and saying the entire thing is fixed. Judge then stops her and smiles, that just cost you a contempt citation. $100 please. She says I am f**king not paying. Good, says the judge, then $500 and tonight you will be spending your evening in lockup, Commissionaire?


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Sorry, I've been really busy lately. To add a bit more context to this case.
> 
> - The wife is a SAHM. 60% of the husbands salary is really not that much considering when he was living with them probably a higher % went toward their care/expenses. Just because he left her doesn't mean he's not still financially responsible for the entire family. He is.
> 
> ...


given that update, the ruling makes more sense. Though I still think the BW should be 'forced' to get a job.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> given that update, the ruling makes more sense. Though I still think the BW should be 'forced' to get a job.


All that would do is punish the children. They would be without their mom, and stuck with strangers for several hours every day. Heck, the workers might even neglect or abuse them. All that, thanks to selfish dad.

If she were to be "forced" to get a job, then the cheating husband should pay for all child care and transportation to and from the daycare, and then any psychological services the children might need due to their lives being turned up side down.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

@VermiciousKnid
While I absolutely applauded the outcome of this case, I think I can safely say that if the “Stay at Home Mom” was the WS, and the BH left due to her infidelity, the coutcome for the BH would be pretty much the same as this WH. He will have all the financial burden ... or am I wrong.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> All that would do is punish the children. They would be without their mom, and stuck with strangers for several hours every day. Heck, the workers might even neglect or abuse them. All that, thanks to selfish dad.
> 
> If she were to be "forced" to get a job, then the cheating husband should pay for all child care and transportation to and from the daycare, and then any psychological services the children might need due to their lives being turned up side down.


seriously? I mean like the ratio of sahp now versus 20 years ago is TINY. He is already paying her for all of that, in alimony and CS. 

Funding two households is way more expensive than one. He is paying the piper. he got financially screwed, but yet, she has to do nothing to help out? 

I get that he cheated and it is horrible and wrong. You have way too big an axe to grind against men in general, or something.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

The Middleman said:


> @VermiciousKnid
> While I absolutely applauded the outcome of this case, I think I can safely say that if the “Stay at Home Mom” was the WS, and the BH left due to her infidelity, the coutcome for the BH would be pretty much the same as this WH. He will have all the financial burden ... or am I wrong.


this ^^^


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

The Middleman said:


> @VermiciousKnid
> While I absolutely applauded the outcome of this case, I think I can safely say that if the “Stay at Home Mom” was the WS, and the BH left due to her infidelity, the coutcome for the BH would be pretty much the same as this WH. He will have all the financial burden ... or am I wrong.


If the same type of case came up but the SAHM was the WS and we represented the father (BS) we'd have gone about it completely different and would have gotten a much better outcome for him than this dad got. Obviously she would be having her affair during the day when he's gone or when on a trip. Since she was the primary care-giver of the children we'd build a profile on her of how much she neglected the children to facilitate her affair. If any of the kids ever got hurt while in her care, and kids always get hurt, we'd claim it was because she was an unfit mother carrying on an affair and shouldn't be allowed more than 50% custody of the children since she has proven to be untrustworthy, of low character, and neglectful of the children due to her nefarious extramarital affair.

We've painted that picture many times before and it works. Family court judges usually come down fairly hard on cheaters especially when children are involved. A lot of people are surprised by that. The common misconception anymore is that cheating doesn't cost you anything in a divorce so have at it. That's not true. A good lawyer will tear a cheater apart in court. There are a lot of tools in our toolbox. We prefer representing a BS in cases like this because we know the outcome is going to go our way heavily. We'll represent anyone who retains us to the best of our ability but with moral degenerates it's harder to get a favorable settlement from family courts. They don't like moral degenerates.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

naiveonedave said:


> seriously? I mean like the ratio of sahp now versus 20 years ago is TINY. He is already paying her for all of that, in alimony and CS.
> 
> Funding two households is way more expensive than one. He is paying the piper. he got financially screwed, but yet, she has to do nothing to help out?
> 
> I get that he cheated and it is horrible and wrong. You have way too big an axe to grind against men in general, or something.



She is helping out by raising his children 24/7. Just because someone decides to leave a marriage doesn't mean it alleviates them of any of the financial responsibility they had during the marriage. Nobody gets a get out of jail free card. That's why so many stay or occasionally have the spouse they're trying to get away from murdered. Like the old blues song says "it's cheaper to keep her".


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> She is helping out by raising his children 24/7. Just because someone decides to leave a marriage doesn't mean it alleviates them of any of the financial responsibility they had during the marriage. Nobody gets a get out of jail free card. That's why so many stay or occasionally have the spouse they're trying to get away from murdered. Like the old blues song says "it's cheaper to keep her".


I totally don't agree. Once there is a D, in the US, you should be working, as it is the norm. SAHP is not the norm and should not be the expectation during D. 

here is my take on this.... Part of it is she didn't take him back, so in essence she is helping change the financial responsibility as well. the cheaper to keep her is true, you only have one household to maintain. It also is that 'she' (could be he if roles are reversed), isn't brining income in, only help lower expenses. The responsibilities for both parties should change in D, no matter what the cause. Should the guy in this situation get the worst of it, YES. However she should not be living the life of Riley, either. D should not be a gold mine for either spouse.

And the reality, in many cases, is that the spouse doesn't remarry, but cohabitates, which complicates stuff more. they probably also always get a job, which negates the benefits of the stay at home parent. Which is why, imo, alimony should be limited in duration AND be up for negotiation when either spouse gets a live in BF/GF, not just marriage.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> If the same type of case came up but the SAHM was the WS and we represented the father (BS) we'd have gone about it completely different and would have gotten a much better outcome for him than this dad got. Obviously she would be having her affair during the day when he's gone or when on a trip. Since she was the primary care-giver of the children we'd build a profile on her of how much she neglected the children to facilitate her affair. If any of the kids ever got hurt while in her care, and kids always get hurt, we'd claim it was because she was an unfit mother carrying on an affair and shouldn't be allowed more than 50% custody of the children since she has proven to be untrustworthy, of low character, and neglectful of the children due to her nefarious extramarital affair.
> 
> *We've painted that picture many times before and it works. Family court judges usually come down fairly hard on cheaters especially when children are involved. A lot of people are surprised by that. The common misconception anymore is that cheating doesn't cost you anything in a divorce so have at it. That's not true. A good lawyer will tear a cheater apart in court. There are a lot of tools in our toolbox. We prefer representing a BS in cases like this because we know the outcome is going to go our way heavily. We'll represent anyone who retains us to the best of our ability but with moral degenerates it's harder to get a favorable settlement from family courts. They don't like moral degenerates.*


*
*
I’m glad that works that way somewhere. It doesn’t here. I was the one cheated on an lost my house and lost full custody battle. Here it’s a formula they use to determine assets and money distribution. they don’t care what you ask for otherwise even if both parties agree. In the realm of custody unless you can prove child abuse they are always awarded 50/50. 

Wish I got divorced in your stated. None of that happens here


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> If the same type of case came up but the SAHM was the WS and we represented the father (BS) we'd have gone about it completely different and would have gotten a much better outcome for him than this dad got. Obviously she would be having her affair during the day when he's gone or when on a trip. Since she was the primary care-giver of the children we'd build a profile on her of how much she neglected the children to facilitate her affair. If any of the kids ever got hurt while in her care, and kids always get hurt, we'd claim it was because she was an unfit mother carrying on an affair and shouldn't be allowed more than 50% custody of the children since she has proven to be untrustworthy, of low character, and neglectful of the children due to her nefarious extramarital affair.
> 
> We've painted that picture many times before and it works. Family court judges usually come down fairly hard on cheaters especially when children are involved. A lot of people are surprised by that. The common misconception anymore is that cheating doesn't cost you anything in a divorce so have at it. That's not true. A good lawyer will tear a cheater apart in court. There are a lot of tools in our toolbox. We prefer representing a BS in cases like this because we know the outcome is going to go our way heavily. We'll represent anyone who retains us to the best of our ability but with moral degenerates it's harder to get a favorable settlement from family courts. They don't like moral degenerates.


but in reality, does it often work that way? Reading other forums, I get the impression that what say you would do, doesn't get practiced often or are most lawyers not good enough to do what you would do?


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> If the same type of case came up but the SAHM was the WS and we represented the father (BS) we'd have gone about it completely different and would have gotten a much better outcome for him than this dad got. Obviously she would be having her affair during the day when he's gone or when on a trip. Since she was the primary care-giver of the children we'd build a profile on her of how much she neglected the children to facilitate her affair. If any of the kids ever got hurt while in her care, and kids always get hurt, we'd claim it was because she was an unfit mother carrying on an affair and shouldn't be allowed more than 50% custody of the children since she has proven to be untrustworthy, of low character, and neglectful of the children due to her nefarious extramarital affair.
> 
> We've painted that picture many times before and it works. Family court judges usually come down fairly hard on cheaters especially when children are involved. A lot of people are surprised by that. The common misconception anymore is that cheating doesn't cost you anything in a divorce so have at it. That's not true. A good lawyer will tear a cheater apart in court. There are a lot of tools in our toolbox. We prefer representing a BS in cases like this because we know the outcome is going to go our way heavily. We'll represent anyone who retains us to the best of our ability but with moral degenerates it's harder to get a favorable settlement from family courts. They don't like moral degenerates.


but in reality, does it often work that way? Reading other forums, I get the impression that what say you would do, doesn't get practiced often or are most lawyers not good enough to do what you would do? Or are the courts not as strong on cheaters as your experience?


----------



## Hexagon (Jun 20, 2017)

Although its not as bad as it use to be, they still favor the woman/mom.
I am the primary caretaker, my ex makes A LOT more, and I have our daughter more.
Does she have to pay support? Nope. But you can bet if the tables were turned in the other direction, I would be.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> You have way too big an axe to grind against men in general, or something.


 It wouldn't have mattered to me if the husband had been a betrayed SAHD and the wife the cheating main breadwinner.

The BS'es and children's lives should not be drastically changed because of cheating, whichever sex the cheater is.

Making up false accusations and attacking me personally simply because I have a different opinion than you does not give you a position of strength, but glares of weakness.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Araucaria said:


> It wouldn't have mattered to me if the husband had been a betrayed SAHD and the wife the cheating main breadwinner.
> 
> *The BS'es and children's lives should not be drastically changed because of cheating, whichever sex the cheater is.*


This is generally the position of the court as well.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Araucaria said:


> It wouldn't have mattered to me if the husband had been a betrayed SAHD and the wife the cheating main breadwinner.
> 
> The BS'es and children's lives should not be drastically changed because of cheating, whichever sex the cheater is.





VermiciousKnid said:


> This is generally the position of the court as well.


I wish it was this way but often it is not. I think men get screwed most of the time no matter what. 

I got off fairly easy, but my Ex insane, drug addict cheater wife, got more than she ever deserved in my opinion. 

I am sure most feel that way. But for me, it was funny that she was to "sick" to work or take care of the house while we were married, but wow... When she knew it was over, she managed to actually find a job and start working for a living. 

Funny how that works...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> It wouldn't have mattered to me if the husband had been a betrayed SAHD and the wife the cheating main breadwinner.
> 
> The BS'es and children's lives should not be drastically changed because of cheating, whichever sex the cheater is.
> 
> Making up false accusations and attacking me personally simply because I have a different opinion than you does not give you a position of strength, but glares of weakness.


just getting D means the kids lives are horribly and drastically changed. THERE IS VIRTUALLY NOTHING THE COURT CAN DO THAT IS REMOTELY FAIR TO ANY PARTY OF THE D, kids or either parent. All will be drastically financially impacted. There is just too much added cost due to having 2 households instead of one (unless it involves massive wealth)


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> This is generally the position of the court as well.


However, this position is actually ludicrous. Outside of really wealthy folk, there just isn't enough money to have anywhere near the same standard of living with the added expense or 2 residences. What used to happen (many years ago), the exW was a pauper. More recently, the exH is an indentured servant. By 'saving the kids', I have seen situations where the kids each play 2 travel sports, the exS with the kids has more or less the standard of living and the other exS essentially lives in a slum. The real answer imo, barring real abuse, is all should suffer some standard of living loss, but no one should be forced to dramatically lose their lifestyle. What appears to happen, from what I have seen, is that you really need to get the best lawyer can and fight like the devil. Unfortunately, I think too many people get taken by the system. Maintaining kids status, as long as they have food, shelter and clothing really is not that important.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> It wouldn't have mattered to me if the husband had been a betrayed SAHD and the wife the cheating main breadwinner.
> 
> The BS'es and children's lives should not be drastically changed because of cheating, whichever sex the cheater is.
> 
> Making up false accusations and attacking me personally simply because I have a different opinion than you does not give you a position of strength, but glares of weakness.


So just hand over 60% of your paycheck and 1/2 your retirement guys, the courts can't wait to give it to the mother to spend how she pleases. And they couldn't care less if it's spent on the mother, the kids, the mother's affair partner, or whatever she wants to do with it. That's "fair". Judges and courts have zero to do with "justice". It's all about the "law" and how the judge feels like interpreting it.

If parents divorce, everyone's life is going to be affected.... One person's life shouldn't be destroyed in favor of "children's lives"... 

Example: A man makes 200,000$ a year and has to give his wife 110,000$. Does ANYONE think that the mother is going to use 110,000 a year taking care of say a couple of kids? Or, is the husband's finances crushed and the ex wife's life is given a huge wad of free cash to do with as she pleases?

meh.... I don't like injustice. 60%, the house, this and that..... That's unjust I think.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

My questions as a judge or the BS attorney is why is his now ex a SAHM if her oldest kid is now 13 years old? In what way does her sitting around the house from 8-3 benefit this child or any of the other children? And how much better off would the children had been if she were not investing tens of thousands of dollars to lobby for the house, half the 401k and 60% of this guys income?
I am sorry, but even in situations like this, no one deserves to get sentenced to indentured servitude for emotional reasons.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Evinrude58 said:


> So just hand over 60% of your paycheck and 1/2 your retirement guys, the courts can't wait to give it to the mother to spend how she pleases. And they couldn't care less if it's spent on the mother, the kids, *the mother's affair partner, *or whatever she wants to do with it. That's "fair". Judges and courts have zero to do with "justice". It's all about the "law" and how the judge feels like interpreting it.
> 
> If parents divorce, everyone's life is going to be affected.... * One person's life shouldn't be destroyed in favor of "children's lives"... *
> 
> ...


The *father* had the affair and everyone is whining that the judge wasn't fair to *him*.

So you think it is fair that the children's lives should be destroyed in favor of the adulterous father.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> However, this position is actually ludicrous. Outside of really wealthy folk, there just isn't enough money to have anywhere near the same standard of living with the added expense or 2 residences. What used to happen (many years ago), the exW was a pauper. More recently, the exH is an indentured servant. By 'saving the kids', I have seen situations where the kids each play 2 travel sports, the exS with the kids has more or less the standard of living and the other exS essentially lives in a slum. The real answer imo, barring real abuse, is all should suffer some standard of living loss, but no one should be forced to dramatically lose their lifestyle. What appears to happen, from what I have seen, is that you really need to get the best lawyer can and fight like the devil. Unfortunately, I think too many people get taken by the system. Maintaining kids status, as long as they have food, shelter and clothing really is not that important.


The adulterous husband/dad should have thought about that BEFORE he had an affair which caused a divorce.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> The *father* had the affair and everyone is whining that the judge wasn't fair to *him*.
> 
> So you think it is fair that the children's lives should be destroyed in favor of the adulterous father.


I never said that, and I know in this case it was the husband that cheated. But taking 60% of his salary is crazy.. Unless he makes 200k a year, he can’t support himself. That’s not right. Nor would a judge do that to a woman no matter what she did.
But for some reason, a man—— it’s ok to screw him over whether he’s a cheater or not.

Btw, what does “destroyed” mean? Their mom has to get a job just like everyone else and they get new Nikes every other week or eat at fancy restaurants anymore? What some people might claim is “destroying their lives” is having the kids in a better situation than 90% of the population.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Evinrude58 said:


> One person's life shouldn't be *destroyed* in favor of "children's lives"...





Araucaria said:


> The *father* had the affair and everyone is whining that the judge wasn't fair to *him*.
> 
> So you think it is fair that the children's lives should be *destroyed* in favor of the adulterous father.





Evinrude58 said:


> Btw, *what does “destroyed” mean? * Their mom has to get a job just like everyone else and they get new Nikes every other week or eat at fancy restaurants anymore? What some people might claim is “destroying their lives” is having the kids in a better situation than 90% of the population.


You used the word destroyed first, so I used it too.

So what did you mean when you said "One person's life shouldn't be *destroyed* if favor of the "children's lives."

I know many families (including mine) that don't eat at fancy restaurants, or buy Nikes. They and we aren't poor, we live frugally so we have money to spend on more important things, as well as care for our larger families. Our children take music lessons at $1500 per child per year. No fancy sports, no fancy clothes, going to the movies, etc. We know how to check out movies from the library to save $.

In cases like that the children really suffer, because what is taken away (music lessons for example) is really important to them and their future.

I think it is terrible for an adult to care more about him/herself than their children. When two people bring children into the world, they need to grow up and put others before themselves. But that is just my opinion, and how I live my life.

From reading this thread, I see that many people (mostly men, it seems) don't care how the children are hurt by one spouse's horrible choice to cheat and blow up the family's lives. They just want the dad to get his 50%, for the wife to go to work, and don't care how the children's lives are turned up side down. Adults are equipped to deal with adversity. Children's personalities are changed for life when bad things happen to them in their childhood. Just living through divorce is bad enough, but losing the presence of their primary care giver because she has to go to work full time, losing their home, because dad needs his 50% of the value of the home , and having to give up their music lessons because Dad wants his 50%, are all unnecessary trauma to the children, IMO.

If a cheating parent didn't want to be financially stressed, they shouldn't have cheated.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Evinrude58 said:


> So just hand over 60% of your paycheck and 1/2 your retirement guys, the courts can't wait to give it to the mother to spend how she pleases. And they couldn't care less if it's spent on the mother, the kids, the *mother's affair partner, or whatever she wants to do with it. * That's "fair". Judges and courts have zero to do with "justice". It's all about the "law" and how the judge feels like interpreting it.
> 
> Or, is the husband's finances crushed and the *ex wife's life is given a huge wad of free cash to do with as she pleases?*





Evinrude58 said:


> *I never said that,* and I know in this case it was the husband that cheated.






Araucaria said:


> The *father* had the affair and everyone is whining that the judge wasn't fair to *him*.
> 
> So you think it is fair that the children's lives should be destroyed in favor of the adulterous father.


You said in the first statement "the *mother's affair partner, or whatever she wants to do with it. *"

and " the *ex wife's life is given a huge wad of free cash to do with as she pleases?*"

I was responding to those statements of yours.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

From what I read, this cat walked out on a 25 year marriage for some tart that works with him. His ex old lady was a "house wife" who likely has to start at the bottom of the food chain job wise. The 401k was there because of a joint financial sacrifice both made. The assignment of the house was due to the wisdom of the judge that the primary caretaker of the kids needed a safe, familiar, and non disruptive environment for the kids. The ho-hopping husband breached a long standing contract and paid for both actual and punitive damages. In short, it was the f-ing he gets for the f-ing he got.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> The *father* had the affair and everyone is whining that the judge wasn't fair to *him*.
> 
> So you think it is fair that the children's lives should be destroyed in favor of the adulterous father.


A judge's job is to apply the law, not impose his (or yours) personal bias against some one. We are a nation of laws, not men.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Ynot said:


> A judge's job is to apply the law, not impose his (or yours) personal bias against some one. We are a nation of laws, not men.


Many laws are written to allow discretion by the courts.
Judges got to do what they do, judge.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

What many are failing to realize is that even if this husband wanted out of the marriage to run off with his AP, he's still responsible financially for the family he's running off from. By law he's not allowed to just walk away from those responsibilities. 60% is actually less than he was spending on supporting his family when he lived with him. That was more than fair because his ex wife actually has less money now to provide for the children than when he was living with them. Their marital agreement was that she stay home full time and run the house and manage the kids. She's living up to that agreement. His part was to financially support them. The court is requiring him to live up to that agreement. He's lucky he got off as well as he did. We wanted more.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

VladDracul said:


> From what I read, this cat walked out on a 25 year marriage for some tart that works with him. His ex old lady was a "house wife" who likely has to start at the bottom of the food chain job wise. The 401k was there because of a joint financial sacrifice both made. The assignment of the house was due to the wisdom of the judge that the primary caretaker of the kids needed a safe, familiar, and non disruptive environment for the kids. The ho-hopping husband breached a long standing contract and paid for both actual and punitive damages. In short, it was the f-ing he gets for the f-ing he got.


I don’t disagree with this, but if the guy can’t get a shower and a plate of food because he’s penniless, how is he going to earn that paycheck?


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

My point is the guy got royally screwed by the judge, and would have likely gotten the same screwing had he been the one that was betrayed, all in the name of “keeping the children’s lives the same.

I’m not oblivious to the kids. But “keeping their lifestyle the same”??????? Sorry, what if the guy list his job? Is the judge going to step his ass in and provide for those kids to keep up their current lifestyle? 

People lose their lifestyles all the time. They deal with it. Yes, there was a “marital contract”. People (women, too) break it all the time. But women are held to a totally different responsibility than men—— and I think that’s wrong.

Equal fair treatment, is what should be the judgement.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Their marital agreement was that she stay home full time and run the house and manage the kids. She's living up to that agreement. His part was to financially support them. The court is requiring him to live up to that agreement. He's lucky he got off as well as he did. We wanted more.


But the marital contract ends with the divorce.

When I pay off my car I am no longer under obligation to the bank to maintain it. When I quit my job I am no longer obligated to get my hair cut.

Where things go off the logic rails with divorce is that there is no way for the wife and kids to continue to live the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed while at the same time the husband doesn't get financially slaughtered. In this specific case there is no reason the wife cannot get some kind of job, or perhaps get job training since she's been sahm, and then get a good job. If there were 4 kids all under 10 yrs old involved, then it would be a different story. But a 13 yr old? There's no need for her to be at home all day not earning $.

Given this is a No-Fault divorce state, it should not matter one little bit who filed for divorce or why. That is what No-Fault means! That blade should cut both ways, meaning nobody has to prove anything to get divorced, but then nobody gets to claim they are due anything from the other person after divorce.

There's no reason everybody shouldn't take a similar reduction in lifestyle with a divorce.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Evinrude58 said:


> I don’t disagree with this, but if the guy can’t get a shower and a plate of food because he’s penniless, how is he going to earn that paycheck?


Had my xw gone for all the law allows, I would literally be living in a trailer and unable to save for retirement. Yet she would still be (and in fact is now) living in the same house with the same lifestyle we had while married, and plenty of money for retirement. Our judge is a known social justice activist minority female, and I held my breath all the way until she signed off on the divorce. She had full legal authority to nullify our mediated uncontested agreement and to impose whatever she thought was equitable. That's what the law instructs the judge to do, to find an "equitable" outcome. Meaning, the judge can do whatever they want.

Marriage is the only contract I know of which has unknown future obligations lasting into perpetuity even after being terminated.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> What many are failing to realize is that even if this husband wanted out of the marriage to run off with his AP, he's still responsible financially for the family he's running off from. By law he's not allowed to just walk away from those responsibilities. 60% is actually less than he was spending on supporting his family when he lived with him. .


I also think many people fail to take this into account when considering divorce. 

I can't speak for other couples but my wife and I have very similar incomes. We are usually within a few thousand dollars of each other each year when we do our taxes. 

Yet, I am the one always having to shell out for various things whenever anything comes up. 

I've seen her bank statements and there's rarely much there so it's not like she's sweettalking me into paying while piling up money in her account. She simply outspends me to a great degree on just "stuff." 

Now she does have all the latest and greatest doodads and gadgets and gizmos while I am still carrying my iPhone 4. But my point is, a good chunk of my income does go to the household and kids and gainfully employed, professional wife. 

If we were to divorce, I can't see paying much, if any, spousal support as our education levels and incomes are so similar. Our state is no-fault and assuming there is no documented abuse, addiction or criminal neglect of the children, joint-custody is the default, so I don't see much if any child support either. 

If we were to divorce, I think my wife would still want to have the big house, shiny SUV in the driveway, the latest and greatest doodads and gadgets and the latest shoes in fashion and would still be living check to check.

(I really don't want to make her out to be an actual spendthrift. She is actually fiscally responsible and thrifty. She is just more spendy as compared to me)

I on the other hand would find a very efficient little apartment. Drive a used Corolla or Civic, wear comfortable and serviceable clothes until they wore out or no longer fit. 

I would support the kids during my custodial times and would cover my share of their insurance, medical care, school expenses etc etc. But I would also tell them 'no' a lot and would be expect them to get jobs to help cover some of their own gadgets and doodads. (they are in their teens) 

Once you have kids, you will pay for kids one way or another. Fact. 

But following a divorce, you can control your own spending habits to a degree and in fact may shell out less over all than what you would if you were all still under the same roof. 

If one party is sole breadwinner and is supporting a SAHM/SAHD and minor children, pretty much 100% of their income is going to the household. 

Even if they do get socked with 60% spousal and child support, that's still less than if they were under one roof. 

As I said in my first post of this thread - the real take away here is not so much about infidelity, but rather do not be the sole breadwinner and do not completely support a SAHM/SAHD.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

I agree, a young man is an idiot to marry and have kids and have a wife who is a SAHM


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Evinrude58 said:


> My point is the guy got royally screwed by the judge, and would have likely gotten the same screwing had he been the one that was betrayed, all in the name of “keeping the children’s lives the same.
> 
> I’m not oblivious to the kids. But “keeping their lifestyle the same”??????? Sorry, what if the guy list his job? Is the judge going to step his ass in and provide for those kids to keep up their current lifestyle?
> 
> ...


Bull****.

This guy screwed _himself_.

You can’t walk away from a 20+ year marriage with a wife that’s been a SAHM without expecting to pay at least _temporary_ alimony, and you’ve got to take care of your kids no matter what.

If there’s anything ****ed up about the way this case turned out, it’s that this guy had to be forced to own up to his responsibilities.

I’ll agree that the ex-wife should work toward getting a job, but only because she’d be dumb to expect that she can count on this guy going forward.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Here is the thing for me...

My wife was a SAHM, we were married for 26 -27 years. She cheated twice, she was a drug addict, bi-polar, and on and on. 

Now I won't list all the numbers, but she gets a piece of my retirement that she cannot draw on until I retire. and I bought her out of the house with some case, I will pay off the rest over time, and the same deal with kind of present value chunk of retirement. I am paying that off as well. 

She gets not alimony, I did not pay her lawyer, so that is all she gets. 

She agreed because I promised to have a jury trial and expose everything she ever did. I further told her that all three children would testify against her in open court. And I was not kidding. 

She got more than I think she was entitled to, but I guess it was fair for the most part. 

But her initial requests we insane and I would have bleed her dry if she persisted. At that point I did not care if I was broke for the rest of my life, I was not giving her what she wanted. 

I got off lucky, most men don't however and it is not right...


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

BluesPower said:


> Here is the thing for me...
> 
> My wife was a SAHM, we were married for 26 -27 years. She cheated twice, she was a drug addict, bi-polar, and on and on.
> 
> ...


The formula _should_ change when the person getting the heave-ho (no pun intended, but hilarious nonetheless) has done exactly the types of things to warrant that treatment.

Unfortunately that’s often not the case unless the aggrieved party has sufficient leverage to ensure that outcome. Sounds like you did, so good for you.

How many of your children were minors at the time of your divorce?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

By the logic of some here, I should still be entitled to my previous lifestyle, since I wasn't the one who choose to get a divorce. I simply cannot understand how any rationally thinking person can think that basically enslaving another human being is the right thing to do. I think there is a lot of projection going on.
Yes, this guy had an affair. But affairs are typically only a symptom of the problem. We have yet to hear about the wife. We have no idea what she was up to, or what she was like. Instead many have granted her near sainthood status, because she is just a poor aggrieved SAHM looking after her children.
The reality is that her youngest is 13 years old. She was free to pursue any job opportunity she wanted over the past 8 years or so. What level of entitlement does she bring to the table. Was she with holding sex? Was she nagging? Did she put on a 100 pounds? We don't know.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Out of the 60% he forfeited in income, the amount allocated to child support remains unknown, or at least I missed it. Most states use the "income shares model" to determine child support. It is based on the belief that the kids should receive the same proportion of parental income that they would received if the parents remained together. Since he earned all the income, the kids proportion come 100% out of his check.
If his old lady gained 100 pounds, cut him off, et cetera, he should have simply went to a professional rather than divorce. These ladies are there to provide these services. I don't understand why men (and women) want to upset the apple cart trying to satisfy an unmet need when the solution is readily available, requires no commitment and much less complicated. Running the street, getting involved with co-workers, neighbors, friends, texting and emails what causes the problems. In the above case, him, his wife, and kids would have been better off.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> Bull****.
> 
> This guy screwed _himself_.
> 
> ...


What about the guy that gets the same deal this guy did, and didn’t cheat. Maybe his wife was cheating on HIM? He’s getting the same deal whether he cheated or not. I know I could not afford to pay my bills on 40% of my salary. I don’t know how most men could.

Yes, he probably payed easily 60% of his check toward his family—- but he got a place to stay and electricity and such..... now he’s paying that for two households.... 

Yes, this guy left a 25 year marriage to be with some trashy kid. But, that’s not true of everyone and they’re getting the same deal he is.
That is what I have a problem with.
60%, She gets house, half his retirement...
Why leave him with 40%? Just take it all and let a man work two jobs. They’re easy enough to come by, right?


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Evinrude58 said:


> What about the guy that gets the same deal this guy did, and didn’t cheat.  Maybe his wife was cheating on HIM? He’s getting the same deal whether he cheated or not. I know I could not afford to pay my bills on 40% of my salary. I don’t know how most men could.
> 
> Yes, he probably payed easily 60% of his check toward his family—- but he got a place to stay and electricity and such..... now he’s paying that for two households....
> 
> ...


First, think about the kind of money that this guy likely makes. Then think about how much 40% of that really is given that he’s already taken care of his parental responsibilities (at least financially speaking) with the other 60% of it.

Will he have to settle for your typical sad, depressed, divorced dad apartment? Maybe. _But he did that to himself._ And how often will he actually be there anyway?

This woman was a SAHM for their 3 kids for the entirety of their marriage, and it’s nothing short of insane to think that he should be able to just walk away from everything — leaving her with no direct way to support herself — without providing at least temporary support.

I’m all for abolishing _permanent_ alimony in all but the most extreme of circumstances, but there have to be allowances for at least temporary support.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I wonder how much the judge was influenced by the fact that this guy was a scumbag. I mean, he was willing to basically throw his kids out on the street (trying to force the sale of the house) so he could keep as much money as possible for his *****.

It doesn't sound to me like he was offering a fair deal, and she's only getting alimony for 5 years, which really isn't that long. If he'd gone to court and said I'd like my kids to stay in their home and am willing to pay fair child support and alimony maybe the judge would've gone a little easier? 

I've counseled my sons against supporting a SAHM, but if you willingly enter into such an agreement it is a business deal that you have to live up to.

This guy travels a lot, and there's no way he could've taken care of his share of the family responsibilities. He took advantage of having her at home to build his career. If that was unacceptable to him he could've taken a job that required little travel and married someone who works.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Wow, we have a lot of MRA, AskMan, RedPill and MGTOW readers here, dont we...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> Wow, we have a lot of MRA, AskMan, RedPill and MGTOW readers here, dont we...


Meaning???????


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

lifeistooshort said:


> I wonder how much the judge was influenced by the fact that this guy was a scumbag.
> 
> 
> . If he'd gone to court and said I'd like my kids to stay in their home and am willing to pay fair child support and alimony maybe the judge would've gone a little easier?
> ...


If he honked the judge off by trying to pull some fast ones or was simply being an arse, I could see the judge padding his support a little, but I doubt if it would have been a whole lot less. 

While judges do have some leeway in their rulings, they are also obligated to not burden the court system with rulings that invariably result in appeals and over rulings. 

When you have kids, you are obligated to provide for them until they are legal adults. 

Most US courts consider a SAHM/SAHD as equally contributing member of the family entitled to continued support until they are able to adequately support themselves. 

Courts are also obligated to not place a SAHM/SAHD and the kids in a position where they will require public assistance to survive if the breadwinning spouse is able to provide enough to keep them off welfare. 

There really isn't a situation where it is ok for the primary breadwinner to just walk away without providing some form of continued support for their minor children. 

As the H in this case spent much of his time away from home, he could have easily spent more on babysitters and child care than he currently does in child support if he had been awarded shared custody. 

The guy may have been a cheat and an arse, but even if he had been a fair, dutiful and faithful husband and father, I doubt if he would have gotten off much better even if his wife were the cheater and the one filing on him. 

The take away here is don't be the sole breadwinner and don't allow your spouse to remain uneducated and without marketable job skills and means to support themselves and provide their own share of financial support of the children in the event of divorce.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Evinrude58 said:


> I don’t disagree with this, but if the guy can’t get a shower and a plate of food because he’s penniless, how is he going to earn that paycheck?


move into his mom's garage/basement.
get a second job.
WH should of kept his penis at home.

consequences for his actions.
he danced so he has no right to complain that the band
was too expensive now.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

No Fault divorce should result in No Fault financial settlement. The court is having it both ways here by granting divorce without the wife having to prove infidelity, but then awarding the most onerous financial settlement possible due to the bad behavior of the cheating husband.

Had it been established prior to the legal proceedings that infidelity would be considered, he would have taken a very different legal approach, while his now ex-w would have had a significant burden to prove his infidelity in court.

I'm not against short term alimony in the case of a SAHM, and I'm not against considering bad behavior on either side of the alimony coin when allowed by law. I am against a judge considering factors which are not part of what the divorce laws prescribe. In a No-Fault divorce there should be no consideration given to adultery or other bad behavior in determining financial and property settlements.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Thor said:


> No Fault divorce should result in No Fault financial settlement. The court is having it both ways here by granting divorce without the wife having to prove infidelity, but then awarding the most onerous financial settlement possible due to the bad behavior of the cheating husband.
> 
> Had it been established prior to the legal proceedings that infidelity would be considered, he would have taken a very different legal approach, while his now ex-w would have had a significant burden to prove his infidelity in court.
> 
> I'm not against short term alimony in the case of a SAHM, and I'm not against considering bad behavior on either side of the alimony coin when allowed by law. I am against a judge considering factors which are not part of what the divorce laws prescribe. In a No-Fault divorce there should be no consideration given to adultery or other bad behavior in determining financial and property settlements.


I agree, how "No Fault" can something be if one can then come in with a bunch of faults that should be considered in the financial settlement. No Fault should mean just that. Some wonder why many men don't file and women file 70+% of the time. Why would you? If a no fault divorce is ultimately decided by how bad your faults are.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Thor said:


> In a No-Fault divorce there should be no consideration given to adultery or other bad behavior in determining financial and property settlements.


No Fault Divorce does not mean its literally no fault. It mean it assigns the grounds for divorce to "irreconcilable differences" or something similar. Although it sounds like its there to assist the divorcing couple, its really designed to foster the efficiency of the courts by avoiding the requirement that the spouse seeking the divorce prove fault on the part of the other spouse. Financial and property settlements in respect to the divorce are a different dog.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> The adulterous husband/dad should have thought about that BEFORE he had an affair which caused a divorce.


you are making an assumption that this was the only thing wrong in the marriage. The purpose of no-fault divorce was to recognize this and to some extent mitigate the damage to all. 

The law should NEVER subject someone to indentured servitude. The guy is rich enough to survive, but barely.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

VermiciousKnid said:


> What many are failing to realize is that even if this husband wanted out of the marriage to run off with his AP, he's still responsible financially for the family he's running off from. By law he's not allowed to just walk away from those responsibilities. 60% is actually less than he was spending on supporting his family when he lived with him. That was more than fair because his ex wife actually has less money now to provide for the children than when he was living with them. Their marital agreement was that she stay home full time and run the house and manage the kids. She's living up to that agreement. His part was to financially support them. The court is requiring him to live up to that agreement. He's lucky he got off as well as he did. We wanted more.


I call BS on this. By getting a D, total expenses go wayyyy up. Not knowing exactly what he makes, he is now close to penniless. That 'agreement' of her staying home is null and void when she files. SHE actually ended the M, technically by filing. 

I think he needs to bear a lot of the burden and without knowing the particulars, he still is bearing most of it.

If he is 'rich', then I can see the 60% settlement (making >$150K/year). If he is making $40K/year, he is now penniless. I also think that tax implications are important.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

GusPolinski said:


> The formula _should_ change when the person getting the heave-ho (no pun intended, but hilarious nonetheless) has done exactly the types of things to warrant that treatment.
> 
> Unfortunately that’s often not the case unless the aggrieved party has sufficient leverage to ensure that outcome. Sounds like you did, so good for you.
> 
> How many of your children were minors at the time of your divorce?


All grown but just out of the house. They all saw what was going on. I still have my S21 at the house as he if finishing collage. 

Like I said, I got off lucky. If I had know about the drug abuse, hidden prescription augmentation addiction, if you know what that means... If I had known and understood what was really going on, it would have happened years sooner.

I was worried that when the kids were younger that she might sober up enough to get some custody which would have not only cost me more, but put them in danger because of her drug use.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> Meaning???????


Meaning the topic is that a husband who cheated on his wife and dumped her and his kids for someone else got some consequences in court, and the responses of "but women don't get punished!!!!" as an off-topic deflective rant is......predictable.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

naiveonedave said:


> you are making an assumption that this was the only thing wrong in the marriage. The purpose of no-fault divorce was to recognize this and to some extent mitigate the damage to all.
> 
> The law should NEVER subject someone to indentured servitude. The guy is rich enough to survive, but barely.


So in your mind if he was not happy it mitigates and justifies adultery and abandonment. Got it


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> Meaning the topic is that a husband who cheated on his wife and dumped her and his kids for someone else got some consequences in court, and the responses of "but women don't get punished!!!!" as an off-topic deflective rant is......predictable.


I am not sure that anyone believes this. If they do then that is kind of silly. 

This guy got what he deserved, but it is debatable if it was fair or not. Seems like a really good settlement for the wife, but I get the other side as well. 

The other side is that through no fault of her own, that we know of, her life is uprooted and ruined. And that he should have to pay through the nose to keep her in "her life style". 

But to me, here is the deal. There is not doubt and it don't think it is debatable that women for the most part fair far better in most divorces, even if they are the ones that cheated. 

What I ask is this. What is fair? The children should be provided for that is certain, but at what level? 

I don't have the answers. But maybe it is time to revisit the concept of "no fault". Maybe if you get caught cheating, you get tossed out on your ear and pay through the nose? 

And there are other types of infidelity besides cheating. What about those...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

BluesPower said:


> I am not sure that anyone believes this. If they do then that is kind of silly.
> 
> This guy got what he deserved, but it is debatable if it was fair or not. Seems like a really good settlement for the wife, but I get the other side as well.
> 
> ...


I agree that women tend to get the better deal, even when they cheat, which, IMO should entitle them to nothing. That was, in the past, because in the majority of cases women were the primary caregivers to the children. I have no idea what the stats on that are now. IMO, as long as both parents are fit, 50/50 should be the standard. And if the mother was a SAHM mom before and the civorce is truly no fault, then mama needs to find a job. Sorry. This is 2018 in the real world economy.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> So in your mind if he was not happy it mitigates and justifies adultery and abandonment. Got it


Not saying he is right, at all. 

However, depending on the current financial situation of that marriage, he could become homeless. That is not an acceptable outcome of divorce, no matter how at fault one party is. The purpose of no fault was actually to prevent women from becoming homeless & penniless. Now a judge is (in this case potentially, as we don't have enough detail), deciding this guy should potentially become homeless. If he does end up on the street, then he likely ends up without a job and now the exW and kids struggle even more.

This isn't a men's rights issue, it is a logical issue of trying to preserve all parties in a D, in a way that isn't overly punitive.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> I agree that women tend to get the better deal, even when they cheat, which, IMO should entitle them to nothing. That was, in the past, because in the majority of cases women were the primary caregivers to the children. I have no idea what the stats on that are now. IMO, as long as both parents are fit, 50/50 should be the standard. And if the mother was a SAHM mom before and the civorce is truly no fault, then mama needs to find a job. Sorry. This is 2018 in the real world economy.


that didn't happen in this case, tho.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

naiveonedave said:


> that didn't happen in this case, tho.


I should have clarified. TRULY no fault that I meant was when no one scums around and betrays their vows. "No fault" laws not withstanding, he was most certainly at fault, so I have no sympathy. You don't want to get screwed by the evil feminist world? Keep it in your pants.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> I should have clarified. TRULY no fault that I meant was when no one scums around and betrays their vows. "No fault" laws not withstanding, he was most certainly at fault, so I have no sympathy. You don't want to get screwed by the evil feminist world? Keep it in your pants.


once again, this is gender neutral. No fault laws should either actually be no-fault laws or we should go back to at fault D. Was this guy in the wrong, surely. Should she get hers, yes. But, depending on what I assume this guy was making, this judgment easily could put him on the street. Then all will lose out, as he will be out of a job.

If you want to go back to at fault, then how do you handle something more significant (physical abuse)? The purpose of no fault was to make it easier, not to allow one side to gouge the other financially. That purpose appears to be abused in almost every D case I read about on here.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

The easy solution legally is to have the option of either filing a fault or no fault divorce in all states. This way if someone wants to go after a spouse for infidelity or any other legitimate cause, then they can pursue it. But if they just want to get out and split assets evenly and fairly, then they can file that way too. I bet that if the vast majority of people had the choice of how to file they'd still go no fault and take an even split of assets just to get things done in the quickest and easiest manner. 

There's no doubt that the guy was a schmuck, but that shouldn't give the judge cart blanche justification in a no fault divorce to do an asset division that wasn't equitable to BOTH parties. After all, that is the basis of a no fault divorce. The way I had a divorce settlement explained to me was that if both people leave court upset that they didn't get as much as they wanted, then it was probably a fair division of assets. If one party isn't upset then the settlement was lopsided and the judge didn't to their job properly, at least for a no-fault divorce.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Bananapeel said:


> After all, that is the basis of a no fault divorce.


Too many folks are hanging on like pit bulls over their perception of what a "no fault divorce" is and it impact on alimony, property division, et cetera. I can only suggest y'all do a little research.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

No fault does not mean that people can do whatever they want and not be held accountable to their financial and child rearing obligations.

No fault simply means that the petitioner does not have to prove malfeasance on the part of the respondent. 

It means that either party can dissolve the marriage just because they want to and they do not have to prove that their spouse did anything wrong to justify the divorce. 

It doesn't mean that anyone will simply be able to walk away scotfree.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> No fault does not mean that people can do whatever they want and not be held accountable to their financial and child rearing obligations.
> 
> No fault simply means that the petitioner does not have to prove malfeasance on the part of the respondent.
> 
> ...


..... Maybe a better way to it it it that it is like handgun permits.

Some states are "May Issue" where the sheriff may issue a permit if he/she thinks the applicant is a good candidate and issuing the permit is justified in his/her opinion. They have discretion on whether to issue the permit depending on various circumstances and qualifications.

Where as other states are "Shall Issue" which means as long as the applicant meets state-mandated qualifications, the sheriff must issue the permit and does not have personal discretion on whether to issue or not.

No fault is much like "Shall Issue" in that a divorce will pretty much be awarded to the petitioner as long as they are a competent, sane, sober adult.

The petitioner would not have to "prove" that the respondent did something wrong to justify the divorce.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

But non fault divorces are found in states with rules saying equitable division of assets. If this case happened in a state that was supposedly equitable, then the judge missed the mark.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

VladDracul said:


> Too many folks are hanging on like pit bulls over their perception of what a "no fault divorce" is and it impact on alimony, property division, et cetera. I can only suggest y'all do a little research.


Irreconcilable difference's or no fault seem to be more a matter what's written on the legal paperwork at the end more than anything. No ws wants to have a final decree state adultery as reason and have it haunt them forever nor does an abuser want abuse listed as the reason.

Almost every state has cute code words like may or could written in the codes which open the door for judge leeway. The problem as an example is 3 judges could have looked at this case and you could very well have had 3 completely different outcomes and it's all "ok" because of the latitude given these judges. 

I still remember the judge at our very first hearing proclaiming how he didn't want to hear about affairs or abuse, it was gonna be irreconcilable difference's cause that's what the law states. Then he asks the two lawyers if that's how other judges do it......as you can guess this was his first ever divorce.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I am amazed at how this guy is excoriated simplybecause he CHEATED! Yes he broke his marital vows. But again, we have no context, other than he cheated. What if she were withholding sex? What if she gad gained a 100 lbs? What if she had changed into a gold digger who was only using the H as a walking ATM? Are these not also violations of the marital vows? There are a lot of ways to violate your marital vows without actually engaging in an affair. As I said, I think a lot of the hyperbole in favor of this miscarriage of justice is pure projection, especially when I see some of those screaming the loudest.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> I do agree the children lose in D. And in the OP, my guess is the children will never forgive their father. It is a shame what D does to a family, especially kids. The question is how much is enough. The reality is there isn't going to be enough income to support two residences, unless the SAHS can get income nearly equal to the exS. NOTE that I am not using H or W, that is irrelevant.
> 
> you are totally missing my point. Since we don't have any details, I will give you the two scenarios that are kind of opposite ends of the spectrum:
> 
> ...


Situation 1 is exactly what happened to me, though I was making a 65k. After the divorce, child support and alimony, I kept 18k. She was a SAHM, to which I agreed to her being in the sense that I did not divorce her when she refused to go back to work after our first was born. She cheated. I filed. Over Six years later, the youngest is 16, and she still does not have a job.


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> Meaning the topic is that a husband who cheated on his wife and dumped her and his kids for someone else got some consequences in court, and the responses of "but women don't get punished!!!!" as an off-topic deflective rant is......predictable.


Well My nephew in law worked 7 days a week two jobs about 70 hours a week

My neice SAHM would call him at work wanting to know when he would be home so she could go out to Fvsk around.

She got the house he got out

She now has a new Caddy SUV in the driveway

Pre ****ing dictable

55


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

oldtruck said:


> move into his mom's garage/basement.
> get a second job.
> WH should of kept his penis at home.
> 
> ...


And in the case such as mine where the SAHM is the cheater? Should the courts be allowed to order her to find a job, especially when the youngest is going into middle school? And if she hasn't secured reasonable employment within say 6 months, she be found in contempt and jailed? The judge in my case admonished me that my alimony and child support was based upon, and would be reconsidered based upon my earning potential, and not actual earnings, and that if I was unable to comply with the order, I would be found in contempt. Oh yeah, my ex wife was the cheater, and over six years post divorce, the youngest is 16, she is still receiving child support and hasn't gotten a job.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Bananapeel said:


> But non fault divorces are found in states with rules saying equitable division of assets. If this case happened in a state that was supposedly equitable, then the judge missed the mark.


The problem is that most folks believe "fair and equitable" basically a 50/50 split. Not true. A court's perception of fair and equitable focuses primarily financial conditions of the parties will be post divorce to determine what division of property and income is fair. A court will consider the financial needs in respect to parenting responsibilities and earning capabilities. If the court deems that one spouse would be at a economic disadvantage after the divorce, it can fashion an award it considers fair and equitable . 




Ynot said:


> I am amazed at how this guy is excoriated simply because he CHEATED! Yes he broke his marital vows. But again, we have no context, other than he cheated. What if she were withholding sex? What if she gad gained a 100 lbs? What if she had changed into a gold digger who was only using the H as a walking ATM? Are these not also violations of the marital vows?


The closest I've ever been to being a judge was an administrative hearing officer over zoning and demolition. Nevertheless, from my observation, the courts are not going to get involved in determining reasonableness of a spouses weight gain, number of marital sexual encounters within a given period of time, budget overruns, and the like. What if the spouse gained 10, 20 or 30 pounds as opposed to 100? What if sex was 2x a week or once a month. What % of monthly income should a spouse spend on personal items? Where would you draw the line on these subjective areas? These calls are beyond the purview of the court.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

VladDracul said:


> The closest I've ever been to being a judge was an administrative hearing officer over zoning and demolition. Nevertheless, from my observation, the courts are not going to get involved in determining reasonableness of a spouses weight gain, number of marital sexual encounters within a given period of time, budget overruns, and the like. What if the spouse gained 10, 20 or 30 pounds as opposed to 100? What if sex was 2x a week or once a month. What % of monthly income should a spouse spend on personal items? Where would you draw the line on these subjective areas? These calls are beyond the purview of the court.


That is not what I would like to see, nor is it what I was suggesting. I mention it because some here seem to think that the H is totally in the wrong here, without any evidence. Would it have been any different, if the W never found out and the H just decided to file on his own out of the blue? Would she be less devastated, less able to feed her nearly adult children?
But, that is just it. Where does the court draw the line? So since the H cheating offended the judge, the H should be punished unreasonably? Whatever the line is, that was purpose of no fault divorces. So that courts didn't get into the he said/she said, knock down drag out battles.
The fact that courts still considers such arguments in deciding how to split up marital assets is a major part of the problem and one reason why men are so loathe to file first. Mainly for fear of being pilloried by some biased judge. Many would rather live a life of relative unhappiness, than be sentenced to indentured servitude for some indefinite period.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Ynot said:


> ... The fact that courts still considers such arguments in deciding how to split up marital assets is a major part of the problem and one reason why men are so loathe to file first. Mainly for fear of being pilloried by some biased judge. Many would rather live a life of relative unhappiness, than be sentenced to indentured servitude for some indefinite period.


And this may be why some unhappy men cheat - when you weigh the risks and rewards, you may decided that there may be a much better chance of getting away with cheating than any expectation of getting a fair deal in court (whether or _not_ you cheat). The question then becomes, which course of action seems more beneficial to you in the long run?

(I'm feeling particularly cynical this evening!)


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

If one has the type of "character" that thinks weight gain, sex issues, etc. excuses cheating, I'm not at all surprised they are aiding with this poor cheating hubby victim.

Gross


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> Situation 1 is exactly what happened to me, though I was making a 65k. After the divorce, child support and alimony, I kept 18k. She was a SAHM, to which I agreed to her being in the sense that I did not divorce her when she refused to go back to work after our first was born. She cheated. I filed. Over Six years later, the youngest is 16, and she still does not have a job.


Which is absolute bull shice. I guess being a SAHP has its perks.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> If one has the type of "character" that thinks weight gain, sex issues, etc. excuses cheating, I'm not at all surprised they are aiding with this poor cheating hubby victim.
> 
> Gross


you do realize that one of the most common vows - to have and to hold - implies a healthy sexual relationship. So, based on violating vows alone, withholding sex is equal to cheating. 

Also, what if your spouse gained a 100 pounds and refused to shower? Filing D is better than becoming a cheat, but.....


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

naiveonedave said:


> you do realize that one of the most common vows - to have and to hold - implies a healthy sexual relationship. So, based on violating vows alone, withholding sex is equal to cheating.
> 
> Also, what if your spouse gained a 100 pounds and refused to shower? Filing D is better than becoming a cheat, but.....


I lived in a sexless marriage - withholding is wrong.

But I'm not having a conversation about what justifies cheating. Because nothing does.

No. Nothing does.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> I lived in a sexless marriage - withholding is wrong.
> 
> But I'm not having a conversation about what justifies cheating. Because nothing does.
> 
> No. Nothing does.


never said it did. However, legally, if he was sexless at her unwillingness, he should not have gotten fleeced in court. Both would be equally wrong. But since none of that ever was in the court proceedings the judge, and really in a very arbitrary way, takes virtually no proof to ruin the guy. So essentially she filed for cause and won, they cause was never proven and he never had a chance to rebut anything.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

naiveonedave said:


> never said it did. However, legally, if he was sexless at her unwillingness, he should not have gotten fleeced in court. Both would be equally wrong. But since none of that ever was in the court proceedings the judge, and really in a very arbitrary way, takes virtually no proof to ruin the guy. So essentially she filed for cause and won, they cause was never proven and he never had a chance to rebut anything.


Perhaps if he had filed for divorce instead of cheating and cited her intentional withholding, it would have been different.

I mean, a person who has been starved will get a lot more sympathy BEFORE they choose to steal.

Bottom line, yeah, the courts are still not as fair as they should be to men. But choosing THIS case to be your poster case for "them mean wimmins" is probably not a good idea. Chose a guy who is worthy to carry the banner instead of this cheater.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> Perhaps if he had filed for divorce instead of cheating and cited her intentional withholding, it would have been different.
> 
> I mean, a person who has been starved will get a lot more sympathy BEFORE they choose to steal.
> 
> Bottom line, yeah, the courts are still not as fair as they should be to men. But choosing THIS case to be your poster case for "them mean wimmins" is probably not a good idea. Chose a guy who is worthy to carry the banner instead of this cheater.


Please stop with the mean women BS. This is totally irrelevant. Switch the genders with the same outcome and I would say the same thing. The system, as is, sucks and is broken. 

It is about what is right, fair and legal. Essentially he got tried and convicted of adultery, even though it is 'no-fault' and a 50/50 state.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> I lived in a sexless marriage - withholding is wrong.
> 
> But I'm not having a conversation about what justifies cheating. Because nothing does.
> 
> No. Nothing does.


I never practiced family law and never had the desire. But I equate marriage to any form of contract and especially to investing in the market. Like any contract you should have an understanding of the performance of certain elements. (sex, money, lifestyle et cetera in respect to a marital contract) If the other party breaches the contract you need to take quick action. And like any contract, to longer you put up with substandard performance, the more it appears you accepted the other person's performance. Hence, its harder for you to explain why you're wanting discharge a contract now for some breach that's been going on for years. 
Marriage is also like trading stocks/investments. You put stop losses on investment to control risk. The longer you stay in a marriage on a down trend the more you lose. (ie., if you get out of an unsatisfactory marriage during the first year or two, its going to cost less than hanging around trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear for ten years. Can you really blame the courts for awarding alimony when you're saying, "For the last 12 years, she cut sex down to one a month and it was har idea to be a SAHM."


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Bananapeel said:


> But non fault divorces are found in states with rules saying equitable division of assets. If this case happened in a state that was supposedly equitable, then the judge missed the mark.


Even 'fault' states still have to be somewhat reasonably equitable.

A fault state does not necessarily mean that one or the other of the party's is to be "punished" by the court for the divorce.

It simply means that the petitioner must provide a "reason" for the court and may have to take some steps to show that that reason did occur and that reason is what lead to them filing for divorce.

That doesn't mean the court has carte blanch to impose sanctions on the respondent if the reason for the divorce is found to be valid. 

That "reason" could be that the respondent would clip their toenails at the dinner table. 

No-fault simply means that a divorce is granted to the petitioner on demand as long as the court determines them to be a sane, sober adult who is informed and aware of their rights and responsibilities and files the proper paperwork and pays the required court fees. 

No other reason is required to be given. 

Fault does not mean that one party is necessarily sanctioned and must bear a larger burden in the final decrie.

And no fault does not mean that everyone walks away scotfree.

And also, equitable does not mean a purely mathematical 50/50 monetary split. 

It means all relevant factors are weighed and the most reasonable outcome that puts neither party on welfare or public assistance is what is often applied. 

That doesn't mean that either party will be happy with it.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

A better term than no-fault is probably "Divorce on Demand." 

No-Fault simply means that a divorce will be granted to whoever files the proper paperwork and pays the required fees and no reason is required to be given and the court does not have discretion to deny the divorce if it does not feel it is for valid reason. 

Fault vs no fault does not have as much impact on the distribution of assets and settlement as what people are thinking it does....(or should.)


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

The original purpose of no-fault was so people wouldn't have to "prove" that their spouse was abusive or cruel or adulterous in order to obtain authorization from the court to divorce and get away from their abuser. 

It was also to save time and expense of the courts so that the courts did not have to spend their time listening to he-said/She-said arguements and then determine whether the divorce request was valid or not.

It's easier for the court (and thusly society as a whole) to simply grant a sane, sober adult a divorce if they want it. 

One of the main reasons for no fault is so courts do not have to figure who is the good guy vs the bad guy and assess sanctions.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> The original purpose of no-fault was so people wouldn't have to "prove" that their spouse was abusive or cruel or adulterous in order to obtain authorization from the court to divorce and get away from their abuser.
> 
> It was also to save time and expense of the courts so that the courts did not have to spend their time listening to he-said/She-said arguements and then determine whether the divorce request was valid or not.
> 
> ...


I agree with this concept, with one issue. 

Too many judges, and divorce courts in general, favor women far too much. The way custody is done, basically the whole thing. 

In fact, while I understand what these systems are trying to do, most of the time they don't get the job done. I think they need to be reformed. 

How to do that and what to change is kind of the issue. But, no offense to lawyers, lawyers don't really want to much of a change or they would have made it happen already...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BluesPower said:


> I agree with this concept, with one issue.
> 
> Too many judges, and divorce courts in general, favor women far too much. The way custody is done, basically the whole thing.
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are some inherent flaws and that there may be some gender biases and unfair practices.

My point is that divorce rulings on matters such as custody, asset division, child support, alimony etc etc are not fault vs no-fault issues and where a state falls under fault vs no fault guidelines may or may not have any bearing at all on the final court rulings as far as custody and child support/spousal support etc.

A no fault court may totally screw over a decent, faithful spouse while a fault court may end up awarding a recalcitrant cheater a honey of a settlement. 

The devil is in the details of the family in question and their financial situation and status of the children etc etc.

It's not that fault states punish cheaters or that no-Fault states turn a blind eye.

It's about distributing the marital property and providing for the needs of the minor children and at times providing for the needs of nonemployed spouse.

The courts are obligated to society not place dependent spouses and minor children on welfare/public assistance if the employed spouse is able to financially cover them.

If you produce children, you will be accountable to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide for their medical care until they are legal adults.

If your spouse is not employed outside the home, that financial burden will fall back in you whether you are married under one roof or divorced.

The courts will also not place a newly divorced SAHM/SAHD on public assistance if it can be avoided via spousal support. 

Society does not want to support your ol' lady just because you found a younger one so you get to support her for a period if time specified by the court.

If she is the cheater and doesn't legally marry the OM, guess what? You still get to support her for a specified period of time and she and the OM get to travel to the Bahamas and go on sex junkets on your dime. 

Divorce courts are obligated to society to not place people on public assistance following a divorce that were otherwise not previously on it.

Is that always "fair" and palatable??? No it obviously isn't.

But these types of rulings are based on keeping kids fed, clothes,housed and schooled and also keeping people that were SAH parents and not previously on welfare to be living feral on the streets or to be supported by the public. 

Those rulings are not really based on fault vs no-fault. 

In the original scenario of this thread, this was a no fault state but the H in question got a pretty burdensome judgement.

My guess is even if his SAHW was the cheater, the ultimate outcome really wouldn't have been much different. He would've still been paying heft CS and SS.

And I doubt if he would have had it much if any worse in a fault state. The court would still be obligated not to place him on public assistance to eat as well although everyone would be harsher on a grown man than minor children and mother. 

No fault just means you don't have to prove your spouse committed some form of malfeasance and you don't have to ask, "Mother-May-I?" to petition for divorce.

Fault does not imply punishment in this case, nor does no-Fault imply that someone isn't going to take it in the shorts.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Given this was a 25 year marriage if he had been in a state like California he probably would have been staring down the barrel of lifetime alimony on top of the "fair and equitable" settlement.


----------

