# Question about Men and divorce.



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

I got off the phone earlier today with a dear friend of mine whose wife is filing for divorce after 11 years of marriage. Backstory: I never thought she was "the one" for him and told him so. She is very stoic and lacks humor and was not a good match for him. Having said that, he does not always see things for what/who they are. He has a timetable and fits people in his life around this. She happened to be around at the right time and he convinced himself that she was "the one". Struggles and issues but she was smart enough often asked to go to MC or seminars/retreats. He has always scoffed at this and said that she in essence is the problem. He doesn't and hasn't ever wanted to admit fault and finds blame in everybody else. She is by no means an angel and I don't really like her but I do think he is a difficult man to love. Very arrogant and pompous. I guess she got sick of it all and is calling it quits.
So during the conversation he is feeling sorry for himself and saying she is taking him to the cleaners. He complained over and over that she is taking half HIS stuff. I ended up taking serious issue with that. Half HIS stuff? Isn't she then by default leaving half HER stuff? He goes on about how women benefit from divorce and a man gets screwed. Huh? How? 
How does a man get screwed in a divorce? I am asking this sincerely. We don't live in a society that gives windfalls to wives anymore. CS until the age of 18 but that goes towards the basic needs for the children. Alimony ends after 3 years in most states and alimony is only granted in the case of a large earning disparity or say in the case of a SAHM who needs time to further her education/hone her skills. Even then, alimony is 20%, hardly a windfall. She won't be getting any alimony because she earns the same as he does. So where is the screwing then? I don't get it. What am I missing here? Apparently there are lots of men who feel this way as I spent the better part of 2 hours after our call checking out sites online. Same thought. Men get screwed over. She took half. Isn't that what happens in the case of divorce, each take half and walk away? Again, what am I missing here? 
The conversation ended with him saying women only care about the wedding day but men care about the marriage. Again, huh? Really? I doubt there are a bunch of women out there who go through the motions of a wedding just for the sake of looking like a Princess for a day. Am I wrong? I mean besides Hollywood, who enters in to a marriage just for appearances? I don't know of a single woman who thought wow I look great in white, let's get hitched. I certainly don't know of a single divorced woman who is living the life of Riley because her cash cow Ex is providing her with a life of luxury. Actually, most of the divorced women I know have suffered tremendously because of their divorce. 
So for all the sage/wise men on this board, what am I missing? I am really curious. Isn't divorce awful for all involved? Doesn't everybody get screwed financially? Doesn't everybody loose? :scratchhead::scratchhead::scratchhead:


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Sounds like your friend is a selfish child.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Yeps, sure does.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Sounds like your friend is a selfish child.


I think he really believes he is getting screwed. In reading online, it is pretty explosive about this issue. Women score financially and Men pay. I don't see that though. Like I said, I don't know of a single divorced woman who is playing tennis and getting massages on her ex's dime. Actually the contrary. Pinching pennies and stressed to the max about paying sports association fees and gear.
Again, what am I missing? I am hoping some of the guys here explains this to me. 
VT, he is a good person. I think right now he is very, very bitter and is licking his wounds over the fact that she left him. He is pulling anything out of his ass to make himself feel better. Gold digger was his "go to" apparently. Nevermind that neither of them had any gold at the beginning of the marriage and the gold they have now they both earned together.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Yeps, sure does.


Dear kind ladies, I am looking for male input. Why is it the general theme in divorce that a man got screwed? That is what I do not understand.
Any guys out there willing to give me insight? :scratchhead::scratchhead:


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Sometimes I wish I had a peenis. I would do magnificent things with it like comment on relevant threads. heh


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Brennan said:


> I think he really believes he is getting screwed. In reading online, it is pretty explosive about this issue. Women score financially and Men pay. I don't see that though. Like I said, I don't know of a single divorced woman who is playing tennis and getting massages on her ex's dime. Actually the contrary. Pinching pennies and stressed to the max about paying sports association fees and gear.
> Again, what am I missing? I am hoping some of the guys here explains this to me.
> VT, he is a good person.


I am sure of it. We all have our blind spots. I am a wreck sometimes wrt admitting I am wrong. Makes me act like a dope sometimes. He may share this peccadillo. But that trait of mine sure enough makes me feel selfish and childish.

The Big issue for him is that if he cannot learn good life lessons from the experience, he may be doomed to repeat mistakes.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Alimony ends after 3 years in most states and alimony is only granted in the case of a large earning disparity or say in the case of a SAHM who needs time to further her education/hone her skills. Even then, alimony is 20%, hardly a windfall.


In California, long-term marriages (10+ years), spousal support is for LIFE.

Status of the wife later cohabitating or even if she cheated does not matter.

Even retirement does not matter.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Dear kind ladies, I am looking for male input. Why is it the general theme in divorce that a man got screwed? That is what I do not understand.
> Any guys out there willing to give me insight? :scratchhead::scratchhead:


There is nothing to understand!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Sometimes I wish I had a peenis. I would do magnificent things with it like comment on relevant threads. heh


LOL. For one day and I mean ONE DAY, I would love to have a penis. To piss standing up and beside a tree with aim and not getting it on your shoe? Awesome! 

Trenton, you can comment on ANY of my posts. VT too!! 

Just trying to get inside a man's head and well, you two aren't what I want right now.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

I wonder if it is a gender issue At All. I know a woman getting a divorce who is certain that the system is out to get her. But I think michzz has a point. Geography plays a role.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> LOL. For one day and I mean ONE DAY, I would love to have a penis. To piss standing up and beside a tree with aim and not getting it on your shoe? Awesome!


It's a skill. 

Many other uses too. Lol!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I am sure of it. We all have our blind spots. I am a wreck sometimes wrt admitting I am wrong. Makes me act like a dope sometimes. He may share this peccadillo. But that trait of mine sure enough makes me feel selfish and childish.
> 
> The Big issue for him is that if he cannot learn good life lessons from the experience, he may be doomed to repeat mistakes.


He will never learn life lessons. You have to be open to learn. He is very smart and very funny. I adore him, don't get me wrong but man is he an ass. 
He is my husband's best friend and I have known him for 30 years. He always bounces ideas off of me but he is unwilling to change. He doesn't get that though. He doesn't think HE has to change, just her. Well, he married somebody who would never make him happy, ever. She was as competitive as he was and often won. Both lawyers. 
I told him the moment he talked about being serious with her. I knew that he needed somebody who was "less than" him. He needed to feel important, a flaw in him to say the least. It fell on deaf ears. I asked him what he loved about her and he said and I quote "She has a pretty face and hot body, she is a Lawyer and she owns her own home on the coast".
Funny now that he calls HER a golddigger.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Who is getting screwed is simply going to be a matter of which party you ask.

From my perspective, I NEVER had a financial partner. My ex was not a spendthrift but her focus was so narrow that to me ... and other outside observers, it bordered on obscene. She was completely dissociated from the finances of marriage.

Like Michzz, I'm on the opposite coast, and MA has extraordinarily screwed up alimony laws, including alimony for life. We separated at 9 years - but technically remained married for 10.

Despite my wife waiving past, present and future alimony which I appreciate, I would have fought her to my last breath, and let them throw me in jail had she wanted alimony ... in this state it is entirely possible for a judge to simply award it anyway ... or ... she can change her mind in say 20 years and still sue me for alimony.

It's those kind of bizarre laws that make people very very angry.

Divorce sucks. It is neither easy nor desirable. 

Divorce has been an absolute and utter financial disaster for both of us. I will never recover. She never took steps to secure any kind of financial future in the first place ... she has no retirement ... we burned through our savings during lean times.

When survival mentality kicks in, or for whatever reason, one party feels wronged or taken advantage of, usually they are going to crow about how the system is unfair.

I have brought up several times, that prior to giving you a marriage license, they should show you just how ugly, onerous, and damaging a divorce will be if you f*ck up your marriage.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Deejo said:


> I have brought up several times, that prior to giving you a marriage license, they should show you just how ugly, onerous, and damaging a divorce will be if you f*ck up your marriage.


Yeah, and offer required divorce insurance!


----------



## greeneyeddolphin (May 31, 2010)

Well, I'm not a guy, but truthfully, I don't know that it's really a gender issue. I know several women who have complained of the same thing: that they got screwed over in their divorce. In fact, I have one close friend who is about to drive me absolutely insane, because she always complains that her stbx didn't give her anything, won't give her anything, is just a big huge jerk. While I do think he is a jerk in many ways, the fact is she never asked for anything. And she told him when she left not to offer, that she was going to leave with what she came in with, which was basically nothing. And I can't stand that she will complain now. 

I think it really just boils down to divorce being a very difficult thing, and that both parties probably feel at least a small amount of resentment and "I got screwed" when it's over. Some feel it more than others, namely whichever one didn't want the divorce. I think perhaps the only reason we hear more from the men is because most often, men don't get custody and so have to pay child support. They think they are paying way more than they should, without realizing that that is money to care for the kids, no different than when it came out of the joint bank account during the marriage. 

Of course, I'm not a guy, so I could be, and probably am, totally off base her. But that's my thought on it.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

It's the presumption that children belong with their mother's and the final say in child rearing belongs to the mother--barring full-on drug use or criminal behavior or mental illness.

That if she wants to move the kids far away from the father, that he can't stop it.

And especially in the case of the supposed stay at home wife who is competent to work but chooses to not do so? Somehow she in 2011 is the exact same type of woman from 1955 who is cast into the cruel world without any recourse.

The presumption that spousal support is required for a lifetime is just plain obscene.

My brother lives in New York City. His wife cheated on him and looted the finances literally 15 years ago or longer. She makes more money than him but hid the cash business receipts in her boyfriends name.

They bought side by side homes in Arizona and have lived together for the balance of these years. Can he have spousal support reduced or eliminated?

Nope!

She doesn't need the money but takes it so she can stick it to him.

She got child support and didn't feed the kids. She used to beat them too. Bipolar.

It's been a nightmare and a travesty. And it won't end until he dies.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

It depends on which side you ask. Technically, half is the way it's done and generally speaking is probably the easiest way. Emotions, circumstances, and laws can often cause it to not seem fair.

I am a guy, I recently divorced, and I'm not extremely bitter, yet there were a few things that rubbed me the wrong way.

I was always a good money manager and managed to save some money. We also had a nice house, vehicles, etc. My wife basically bought groceries and her clothes, and I paid for everything else. I played a major role in household chores as well. Nonetheless, she got the house and most of it's furnishings, and guess what I got to balance it out? I got to "keep" all my retirement. How generous! You know what, "my" retirement wasn't hers to begin with. She wasn't the one who walked the college campus for 5 years getting a degree before we even met. I think as long as you are together, it is different, but why divorce someone and want connections even into retirement? 

She also made some negative remarks about my money management saying that, "everything was about money to me." Well, it really wasn't, she just came from a family who had very little and if they got a few bucks they would just as soon spend it on something stupid than sensible, so the idea of someone "managing" money was strange to her. She acted like saving money was ridiculous, yet, it wasn't so terrible that it prevented her from taking half of it. I assumed she might have been too embarrassed. 

In addition, my parents gave us a lot of money to help build our house and just build our account, so, a lot of the money she got came from them. 

In addition, I pay child support. What man on earth would not want his kids to be provided for? But again, she will probably spend it on something ridiculous instead of the kids.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I think I am the lone woman on here that tends to agree that men generally get ripped off more in divorce than women. I have always felt this way, as they 9 chances out of 10 automatically loose their children, willingly uproot themselves from the home for the sake of the children, plus have to pay huge chunks in child support -knowing full well that once it enters her hands -she can do as she pleases with it & he can do absolutely nothing about it. I have heard women brag about this. 

And if the wife put her husband in debt on top of that with carelss spending or sexually starved him, I can surely see his madness , even rage to have it all come to loosing So much of what he lived & sweat for. 

IF I cheated on my husband or did him any harm & it was MY FAULT the marraige failed, I would not feel it even "fair" to get half at all, especially if he worked the whole time and I did not. I seriously do feel this way. But then if HE was more at fault , I could see getting half -because I did not derserve this and that would be fair to me. 

I know nothing about how this works in the courts, I assume everything is "NO FAULT" these days, everything split down the middle , the courts want nothing to do with trying to maze through marital issues & placing blame. 

I just feel it is a very sad if the more guilty party is still whining and complaining about not getting enough. I think the courts do the best they can. If the husband was not the more guilty, I just feel he stands to loose way more than he ought too.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

southbound said:


> It depends on which side you ask. Technically, half is the way it's done and generally speaking is probably the easiest way. Emotions, circumstances, and laws can often cause it to not seem fair.
> 
> I am a guy, I recently divorced, and I'm not extremely bitter, yet there were a few things that rubbed me the wrong way.
> 
> ...


Your post seems to sum up what alot of guys I have read about feel. Question though, how is your retirement not 50% hers as well? Did you stash away into it while married? Also, your comment about her buying something ridiculous with CS kind of rubs me the wrong way. Let's suppose she does go out and buy something for herself. Would she then not use her own money to provide for the kids? It balances out, doesn't it? I.E. she buys a new car to cart the kids around. Pays the payment with CS money. Does that not benefit the children? She would then have to use her resources to provide food, pay bills, sports stuff, etc. Not trying to argue just not understanding your feelings but they are very similar to what I have read and frankly what my friend is pretty much saying.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Keep some perspective Brennan.

If you are like myself, Southbound, or any number of guys here that felt like they were bending over backwards to create a healthy, balanced, marriage, only to realize that your spouse simply wasn't interested in what you're selling ... but when they have decided that it's over, and they are knocking boots with someone else; NOW they want balanced in the form of keeping the house, keeping the kids, taking roughly 40% of your income via child support and alimony ... the practical perspective of 'half' mine and 'half' yours loses all credibility. If you actually wanted to save your marriage, this is probably the point that will forever change how you perceive your stbx.

I won't marry again. There is absolutely no up-side to marriage at this point in my life.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Keep some perspective Brennan.
> 
> If you are like myself, Southbound, or any number of guys here that felt like they were bending over backwards to create a healthy, balanced, marriage, only to realize that your spouse simply wasn't interested in what you're selling ... but when they have decided that it's over, and they are knocking boots with someone else; NOW they want balanced in the form of keeping the house, keeping the kids, taking roughly 40% of your income via child support and alimony ... the practical perspective of 'half' mine and 'half' yours loses all credibility. If you actually wanted to save your marriage, this is probably the point that will forever change how you perceive your stbx.
> 
> I won't marry again. There is absolutely no up-side to marriage at this point in my life.


Infidelity is not what I am talking about. A marriage that ends because neither really put in the effort should be split 50%, at least that's what I think. Yes, Deejo, YOU might have given it your all but there are lots of husbands who didn't and then get upset when she files. Take my friend for example. He will brag til the end of time of how great a husband he was. He wasn't. For every guy out there who thinks he is Husband of the Year, there is a Wife out there who thinks he is Worst Husband of the Year. Different truths, I guess. I don't see how he thinks he got a bad deal but that is a theme it seems.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Infidelity is not what I am talking about. A marriage that ends because neither really put in the effort should be split 50%, at least that's what I think. Yes, Deejo, YOU might have given it your all but there are lots of husbands who didn't and then get upset when she files. Take my friend for example. He will brag til the end of time of how great a husband he was. He wasn't. For every guy out there who thinks he is Husband of the Year, there is a Wife out there who thinks he is Worst Husband of the Year. Different truths, I guess. I don't see how he thinks he got a bad deal but that is a theme it seems.


Like I said, it is simply going to come down to who you ask.

If you were to ask my ex, she undoubtedly wouldn't be happy about her outcome either ... and we chose the outcome together.

That's the thing about divorce and the courts. They are pretty much going to assure that nobody is 'happy' about the outcome.

If you are angry and bitter, there is a very clear target to point at as being the source, whether it's grounded in reality or not.

I don't have any delusions that there are throngs of beat-down bitter men and hordes of women that raked them over the coals out whooping it up. Just doesn't work that way. Hope you never have the displeasure of finding out.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Like I said, it is simply going to come down to who you ask.
> 
> If you were to ask my ex, she undoubtedly wouldn't be happy about her outcome either ... and we chose the outcome together.
> 
> ...


I hope I never go through it, that's for sure! I would hope that my husband would be more mature about it than our friend but you never know until it happens. It just gets under my skin this whole "I'm getting robbed". Uh, no you are not. The CS he will be paying is about the same as what they jointly paid each month when living together. He almost seems resentful that he has to pay it which REALLY pisses me off. She certainly isn't going to living it up on CS. Luckily she has a great career. Many women don't and they come out much much worse off than the husband.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

I think someone like your friend who is completely dismissive of even child support is expressing his anger and dissatisfaction about his ex-wife, not his kids.

He doesn't respect her ability to take care of the children with his money.

Based on reality? I don't know.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

michzz said:


> I think someone like your friend who is completely dismissive of even child support is expressing his anger and dissatisfaction about his ex-wife, not his kids.
> 
> He doesn't respect her ability to take care of the children with his money.
> 
> Based on reality? I don't know.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Absolutely agree.


It isn't "his money", it his daughter's. I guess you hit the nail on the head with your comment and where so many men come from attitude wise. Southbound said almost the same thing..."she will do something stupid with my money". Frankly, who cares what she buys with the money. The child still has to be provided for regardless if she uses his actual check to pay the car payment or uses her actual check to buy food. It all goes towards the same thing.....the child's needs. Once my friend realizes this, he will be in a better frame of mind. Sadly, I doubt he ever will reach this conclusion. Still my friend but he needs to have a serious attitude adjustment.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Then you have your answer. Happy we could help.

My 'absolutely agree' was about the expression of his anger and dissatisfaction with his ex.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo,
Not sure if you are being snarky. I didn't get much of an answer but I guess that is because one size apparently doesn't fit all when it comes to divorce. Everybody handles it differently. It just seems like a majority of men feel rooked and I don't see that to be the case. Again, hope it is never my turn!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Bottom line: Yes ... we do feel rooked. Yes many of us do get the shaft.

Trying to get someone who has had their life turned upside down, lost their partner, their home, and open access to their children to see it differently just ain't gonna work.

That's the way it feels and all of the reason and rationale in the world isn't going to change it.

Right or wrong has absolutely zero practical application when it comes to the emotions around divorce.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

I know a guy who's ex tried to convince him to purchase all kinds of things ranging from food, shoes, vacations, electronic gadgets instead of paying the agreed on child support, don't worry about receipts, etc.

Then she went to court saying he wasn't paying the child support!

She played an elaborate mind eff on him at the expense of the children.

So the court rapped him for nonpayment even though he could show he bought all that stuff. His wages are now garnished. Back CS due too.

Why?

Because he was supposed to pay her.

She denied ever telling him to get the stuff instead of paying her.

Whatever it is that was motivating her to do this evil thing, he'll never know.

But he now knows to not trust a thing she says and definitely doesn't think she has her children's best interest at heart. She uses them like weapons.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Bottom line: Yes ... we do feel rooked. Yes many of us do get the shaft.
> 
> Trying to get someone who has had their life turned upside down, lost their partner, their home, and open access to their children to see it differently just ain't gonna work.
> 
> ...



I agree with you about emotions around divorce. Does the bitterness ever go away though? I seriously hope it is never my turn.


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

Lastinline on this board currently has full custody of his six children and has to pay his wife child support for them all.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Atholk said:


> Lastinline on this board currently has full custody of his six children and has to pay his wife child support for them all.


How is that even possible?! What you mentioned and what Misczz mentioned are clearly the extremes. In friend's case it is a 50% split and he is still moaning. I don't even like her but it is hard to like his behavior/attitude around this. His sense of entitlement is staggering.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Brennan said:


> I agree with you about emotions around divorce. Does the bitterness ever go away though? I seriously hope it is never my turn.


Bitterness around the person may go away ... will go away, certainly over time.

Bitterness surrounding the circumstances and memory of a divorce? No. That stays.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Atholk said:


> Lastinline on this board currently has full custody of his six children and has to pay his wife child support for them all.


That was the part I forgot about with my brother.

He paid child support even though she starved the kids and hit the boy. AND they were at that point living with him.

Why?

Lack of common sense in our court system and government generally.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> How is that even possible?! What you mentioned and what Misczz mentioned are clearly the extremes. In friend's case it is a 50% split and he is still moaning. I don't even like her but it is hard to like his behavior/attitude around this. His sense of entitlement is staggering.


Not sure if they are the extremes, but I get how it is annoying to deal with arrogance where humility may be a better strategy.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Brennan said:


> How is that even possible?! What you mentioned and what Misczz mentioned are clearly the extremes. In friend's case it is a 50% split and he is still moaning. I don't even like her but it is hard to like his behavior/attitude around this. His sense of entitlement is staggering.


Not nearly as extreme as you may want to think.

In MA if you remarry ... the state can garnish your new spouses wages in the event that you lose your job ... to cover child support to your ex spouse.

Or ... there is the case of the guy that was happily remarried. Divorced over 20 years. His ex never remarried. He retired. His ex hit hard times and despite never having had alimony, decided to sue him ... AND WON. Judge decimated his pension. Both he and his wife had to go back to work ... in order to pay for his ex of over 20 years.

There is a huge lobby fighting the alimony laws in this state.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Not nearly as extreme as you may want to think.
> 
> In MA if you remarry ... the state can garnish your new spouses wages in the event that you lose your job ... to cover child support to your ex spouse.
> 
> ...


Come on Deejo. Fine. For every story like that, there are fathers out there not paying CS or thinking buying a box of Pampers fulfills his financial obligation. I worked with a guy who thought $150 a month was too much for his son. Really? A 3 year old only costs $150 a month. Gosh, wish that was my kid.
I was not wanting to point out the extremes but rather the norm. Husband and wife splits, joint custody for the most part, both parents work..so little to no alimony. That is pretty standard for divorces these days. Nobody "looses" the house these days. They either get their portion bought out or they give up their portion in return for the other to assume all the debt. I guess there will always be people who think they got screwed no matter how things panned out. Enter, my friend.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

michzz said:


> It's the presumption that children belong with their mother's and the final say in child rearing belongs to the mother--barring full-on drug use or criminal behavior or mental illness.


According to a reliable lawyer I know, this is also different based on geography. Where she is in New England the default is 50/50. There is MUCH less bias towards mothers than there used to be. It seems, though, that in many places, there is still quite a way to go.



> That if she wants to move the kids far away from the father, that he can't stop it.
> 
> And especially in the case of the supposed stay at home wife who is competent to work but chooses to not do so? Somehow she in 2011 is the exact same type of woman from 1955 who is cast into the cruel world without any recourse.


What do you mean by [she] chooses not to do so? It would be pretty difficult for a court of law to work out who wanted what. It is not always the woman who wants, or solely wants to be home for the benefit of the children. In a good marriage this is the kind of decision that is made by both. 

If my marriage were to fall apart today, heaven forbid, I would need spousal support until I could become employed. We BOTH chose for me to be home as the best thing for OUR children. So that does not seem bad to me.



> The presumption that spousal support is required for a lifetime is just plain obscene.


Amen to that. Obscene indeed.



> My brother lives in New York City. His wife cheated on him and looted the finances literally 15 years ago or longer. She makes more money than him but hid the cash business receipts in her boyfriends name.
> 
> They bought side by side homes in Arizona and have lived together for the balance of these years. Can he have spousal support reduced or eliminated?
> 
> ...


Moral of the story. Don't marry a vindictive, useless beotch. But hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

You're going to get horror stories from either side of the fence. 

Don't know what else to tell you. You are trying to apply reason into circumstances where the participants don't give a sh!t about reason.

None of what you outlined applied in my divorce, or the other divorces that have been brought to light by members here thus far.

Best to accept that there is no 'common' divorce.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> You're going to get horror stories from either side of the fence.
> 
> Don't know what else to tell you. You are trying to apply reason into circumstances where the participants don't give a sh!t about reason.
> 
> ...


Fine. But could we agree that for many people, no matter what the circumstances or how things worked out....they will always feel screwed anyways? A sort of victim mentality.


----------



## lime (Jul 3, 2010)

Alimony blows. I know (well, knew) someone who is still paying alimony even though he died over 5 years ago. As a woman, I should hope I have enough self respect not to demand alimony from a deceased ex.

I think there is a fine line between needing child support and taking unnecessary advantage of child support. Yes, stay-at-home moms sacrificed aspects of their career to stay at home, but I don't know if that automatically gives them the _right_ to child support. People make decisions everyday and must live with the potential benefits as well as the consequences. I feel that some amount of child support is fair, as it allows the parent who stayed at home to take some time to find a decent job, but many of these parents continue receiving child support and alimony simply because they don't want to work.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

lime said:


> Alimony blows. I know (well, knew) someone who is still paying alimony even though he died over 5 years ago. As a woman, I should hope I have enough self respect not to demand alimony from a deceased ex.
> 
> I think there is a fine line between needing child support and taking unnecessary advantage of child support. Yes, stay-at-home moms sacrificed aspects of their career to stay at home, but I don't know if that automatically gives them the _right_ to child support. People make decisions everyday and must live with the potential benefits as well as the consequences. I feel that some amount of child support is fair, as it allows the parent who stayed at home to take some time to find a decent job, but many of these parents continue receiving child support and alimony simply because they don't want to work.


Right to child support? So this should be optional? It isn't the spouses right, it's the child's.

Also, unless the ex has a very very high salary, I doubt many can sit on their laurels instead of working. $100k a year salary would be $20k in CS. Do you know of anybody getting by on $20k with kids? I don't. Even if you threw in alimony, in most states that is for 3 years only and 20%. $40k for 3 years of which half of that is for the child. She isn't shopping at Tiffany's with that kind of money, that's for sure. 
Again, I said "most". Clearly as posted, there are exceptions.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Right to child support? So this should be optional? It isn't the spouses right, it's the child's.
> 
> Also, unless the ex has a very very high salary, I doubt many can sit on their laurels instead of working. $100k a year salary would be $20k in CS. Do you know of anybody getting by on $20k with kids? I don't. Even if you threw in alimony, in most states that is for 3 years only and 20%. $40k for 3 years of which half of that is for the child. She isn't shopping at Tiffany's with that kind of money, that's for sure.
> Again, I said "most". Clearly as posted, there are exceptions.


I know my brother's case may be exceptional, but it happens enough for it to be a significant thing.

And that 3 years and done with spousal support flat out doesn't apply everywhere.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that any parent (emphasis n neutral term) not do right by their child. My sticking point is on manipulating the system of spousal support as a punitive tactic.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> I know my brother's case may be exceptional, but it happens enough for it to be a significant thing.
> 
> And that 3 years and done with spousal support flat out doesn't apply everywhere.
> 
> Mind you, I am not suggesting that any parent (emphasis n neutral term) not do right by their child. My sticking point is on manipulating the system of spousal support as a punitive tactic.


Ok, well I will mention my own circumstance. As many of you know we have been close to divorcing on many occasions. To sum up: married 17 years (married in CA), two kids (one now an "adult"), husband has graduate degree and fantastic salary, I have HS diploma and make less than a third of his. Two attornies told me that he would be required to pay CS of 20% for his underage son (regardless if "adult" son is living with me) and that the maximum alimony I would get is 3 years at 20% and even that was iffy. Even if I "got" the house, I wouldn't be able to afford it. So in essence, he wouldn't be obligated to pay anything for older son's care and CS for 5 years for youngest. Alimony would happen but for a short duration. So when all is said and done, he could walk away in 5 years with his entire salary and earning prospects, while I was left in essence where I started and having to rebuild my life from scratch. Sobering to say the very least. I'll be darned though if he would have any right to think he got worked over.

I cannot imagine my situation is unique either.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Ok, well I will mention my own circumstance. As many of you know we have been close to divorcing on many occasions. To sum up: married 17 years (married in CA), two kids (one now an "adult"), husband has graduate degree and fantastic salary, I have HS diploma and make less than a third of his. Two attornies told me that he would be required to pay CS of 20% for his underage son (regardless if "adult" son is living with me) and that the maximum alimony I would get is 3 years at 20% and even that was iffy. Even if I "got" the house, I wouldn't be able to afford it. So in essence, he wouldn't be obligated to pay anything for older son's care and CS for 5 years for youngest. Alimony would happen but for a short duration. So when all is said and done, he could walk away in 5 years with his entire salary and earning prospects, while I was left in essence where I started and having to rebuild my life from scratch. Sobering to say the very least. I'll be darned though if he would have any right to think he got worked over.
> 
> I cannot imagine my situation is unique either.


Agreed!

So one thing, knowing this, is to start preparing if things are still iffy at home.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> Agreed!
> 
> So one thing, knowing this, is to start preparing if things are still iffy at home.


Things are stable right now, not iffy but not awesome either. Day by day as they say.

I wanted to clarify that I can take care of myself and wouldn't ever reconcile lifetime support within myself, ever. If it came to divorce we would sell the house, split the proceeds, divide accounts and house stuff. I would want total joint custody since he really is a fantastic parent. Half with me, half with him. The reason child support would come up with that kind of arrangement is because I would not be able to afford to pay for the kids needs. He would only be legally obligated to pay for 1 child however, despite his oldest not being on his own. 
17 years of marriage and I would leave with my half and my much much lower salary. 17 years of marriage and he would leave with his half and a graduate degree that he got while married, a career that has skyrocketed while I put mine on hold and his limitless future opportunities. 
Life isn't always fair, but like I said, I think my situation is more common than the bon bon eating ex-wife who doesn't lift a finger while living off her fat cat ex.


----------



## reachingshore (Jun 10, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Ok, well I will mention my own circumstance. As many of you know we have been close to divorcing on many occasions. To sum up: married 17 years (married in CA), two kids (one now an "adult"), husband has graduate degree and fantastic salary, I have HS diploma and make less than a third of his. Two attornies told me that he would be required to pay CS of 20% for his underage son (regardless if "adult" son is living with me) and that the maximum alimony I would get is 3 years at 20% and even that was iffy. Even if I "got" the house, I wouldn't be able to afford it. So in essence, he wouldn't be obligated to pay anything for older son's care and CS for 5 years for youngest. Alimony would happen but for a short duration. So when all is said and done, he could walk away in 5 years with his entire salary and earning prospects, while I was left in essence where I started and having to rebuild my life from scratch. Sobering to say the very least. I'll be darned though if he would have any right to think he got worked over.
> 
> I cannot imagine my situation is unique either.


In my country (majorly Catholic) a female member of one of the leading neoconservative parties proposed that women who resigned from working careers in order to raise children should be given a paycheck by the government. Obviously that idea will never become reality, but it makes you think. Women do a job while raising children. A hard job.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

reachingshore said:


> In my country (majorly Catholic) a female member of one of the leading neoconservative parties proposed that women who resigned from working careers in order to raise children should be given a paycheck by the government. Obviously that idea will never become reality, but it makes you think. Women do a job while raising children. A hard job.


Yup, nurse, cook, driver, psychologist, referee. I was a SAHM for many years. I know the drill. I can still bore holes in to foreheads of my teenage boys from the back of my head.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

reachingshore said:


> In my country (majorly Catholic) a female member of one of the leading neoconservative parties proposed that women who resigned from working careers in order to raise children should be given a paycheck by the government. Obviously that idea will never become reality, but it makes you think. Women do a job while raising children. A hard job.


People don't get paid for doing hard work. They get paid for providing value to someone. I stack my wood. Hard work. I don't get paid for it. It is of value to no one but me.

To whom is motherhood valuable? One might argue that it is valuable to society as a whole to have invested mothers. And one would have a derned hard time demonstrating that with any objective measurement. But I think invested mothers will do it anyway. All that paying mothers would do is encourage people who would not otherwise choose to do it for the sake of not having to work. That is not to say that you would not have some people who genuinely wish they could but cannot due to financial reasons. But the systems is ripe for abuse.

And would it also be open to fathers? If not, that is a terribly sexist policy.


----------



## reachingshore (Jun 10, 2010)

VT, don't know about fathers. Like I said, this idea will never become reality. For whatever reason.

This political party pushed for paying out money to pregnant mothers. The one time payout is meant as a kind of government child support. It has become a reality. All that is meant as an encouragement for people to have children as pretty much all European countries battle with getting old (aging population). Motherhood, or parenthood rather, is valuable to a society. Actually this "child support" was setup in such a way that not only the mother has to be under doctor's care, but also the money is paid out after the delivery. Either the mother or the father can claim it, but not both.

My comment about the idea to give paychecks for SAHMs was meant in view of the divorce situation. A SAHM is left pretty much with nothing, e.g. no good job prospects, since she hasn't been on a job market for so long, plus she chose to raise children rather than invest in her education. Of course there are SAHMs who go to college in the meantime.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Fine. But could we agree that for many people, no matter what the circumstances or how things worked out....they will always feel screwed anyways? A sort of victim mentality.


This, I think, is the closest thing to hitting the nail on the head, Brennan. 

As you've seen there are extreme stories on both sides, because our court systems are a mess, some lawyers are better than others, and at times because the judge or lawyer or one of the spouses is corrupt! 

In an ideal world a man and woman jointly decide it is in their family's best interest for her to finish law school and become a partner while he stays home and is a house husband--and they divorce and split the custody 50-50--it seems to me that should have the same CS results (she pays CS to him) as if that happened to the MAN going to law school and woman staying home. However, the truth of the matter is: it doesn't happen like that. Likewise, if a man is the better parent and gets custody of the children, and the woman has equal potential to earn as he does, it seems reasonable that HE should be the one getting CS. See how our courts are biased?

And yet, if the couple both work, and both decide to buy a home using their joint funds, and both contribute to retirement funds, and they divorce and she has primary custody (meaning the children are with her more of the time)--I very frequently hear the male person say he was "screwed" if she gets half of the home equity and half of the retirements funds and CS! Why? She worked. The home was bought and paid for jointly. So were retirement funds. She has a greater burden of caring for the children. In that instance usually the "screwed" complaint comes from a feeling of entitlement--it was HIS house, HIS money, HIS retirement...and the fact she gets *any* makes him mad. 

So here's REALITY. Divorce **hurts** and no matter what you are going to lose something precious to you. Divorce **costs** and no one comes out a winner, ever. And usually when a couple divorces, one spouse hurts the other and the typical, human nature response is to want to hurt them back. When a judge says "no" or "you can't..." people get upset because they can't hurt their spouse back without getting in trouble themselves. Soooo...they cry "foul!" and claim that their spouse "screwed" them.

Here's more reality. Fairly often one or the other parent has the kids "most of the time" and actually cares for them and thinks of them--and the other parent is sort of "walk-away" and doesn't take responsibility for them as much (this is often the same spouse who wouldn't take personal responsibility for their own choices...). So what happens? The kids live with one parent more--that parent sometimes gets and sometimes doesn't get any help or CS from the other parent (or very minimal)--and the custodial parent goes ahead and does the right thing anyway. 

Alternatively fairly often one or the other parent tries to get the kids on "their side," lies about the other parent, alienates them and ruins the relationship between the other parent and their own kids...and all because they want to justify their own behavior by having more people on "their side." 

So life sucks, and it's not fair. Live anyway...and grow up, this isn't the playground anymore (right?).


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

reachingshore said:


> VT, don't know about fathers. Like I said, this idea will never become reality. For whatever reason.
> 
> This political party pushed for paying out money to pregnant mothers. The one time payout is meant as a kind of government child support. It has become a reality. All that is meant as an encouragement for people to have children as pretty much all European countries battle with getting old (aging population). Motherhood, or parenthood rather, is valuable to a society. Actually this "child support" was setup in such a way that not only the mother has to be under doctor's care, but also the money is paid out after the delivery. Either the mother or the father can claim it, but not both.
> 
> My comment about the idea to give paychecks for SAHMs was meant in view of the divorce situation. A SAHM is left pretty much with nothing, e.g. no good job prospects, since she hasn't been on a job market for so long, plus she chose to raise children rather than invest in her education. Of course there are SAHMs who go to college in the meantime.


Interesting thoughts. In my friend's situation, both have J.D's and his wife had work experience/contacts in her field. She was a stay at home mom for many years but given her background, it wasn't difficult for her to find a job. She certainly isn't the norm though. More often than not, a SAHM might have a college degree but limited work experience. Going out in to the work force with say a B.A. in History or English after staying at home for 10 years is going to guarantee that she will not have the same earning power as her husband. What's the solution? Not sure. 
I'll be real honest. I would strongly caution younger women against being a SAHM. With a 50% divorce rate, you are almost setting yourself up to have to start over if your marriage fails. 
I adore my friend but he has his head up his butt if he thinks he is getting a raw deal. His situation is actually fantastic. They both earn roughly the same so no alimony, CS for his daughter as stbxw will be primary caregiver (he travels for work quite often) and they divide all other assets 50/50. She "gets" the house but what she "gets" is all the debt with that house as they are flipped, big time. She is taking a huge gamble that it will recover it's value, which given where they live might be 10 years from now, if ever. So they both walk away with their careers, she will take care of the child and he will pay 20% of his salary for his daughter's support until she turns 18. He walks away with no debt while she assumes it all. Hardly a screw job in my opinion but don't tell him that. The way he paints it, he lost his child, his house and ALL his money. That is hardly the situation at all. Heck, his own Mother told him he is being an idiot.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

reachingshore said:


> Motherhood, or parenthood rather, is valuable to a society.


No it isn't. GOOD parenthood is. There are plenty of parents who have no business reproducing. It seems to me that the enticement of money is likely to appeal to those. Call me cynical.


----------



## reachingshore (Jun 10, 2010)

LOL. To be honest I really do not think governments think, in their plan to lower the demographic age, about the quality of parenthood. Cynicism in all its glory.

That one time payout per baby isn't a fortune really. It won't cover all baby "equipment" costs. A good quality pram will exceed the amount of that payout. Having and raising a child is a very pricey venture.

I agree, Brennan. Even if a man/woman decides to be a SAHP they should figure out their strengths, skills in order to be self sufficient financially, just in case. In that regard, Internet is a fabulous invention (online businesses).

Sure, as AffairCare says, all parties get hurt in a divorce. But I think that objectively speaking, when it comes to finances the earning parent is a jerk if he thinks the Stay At Home Spouse "takes him/her to the cleaners", "rips him/her off" etc.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Affaircare said:


> This, I think, is the closest thing to hitting the nail on the head, Brennan.
> 
> As you've seen there are extreme stories on both sides, because our court systems are a mess, some lawyers are better than others, and at times because the judge or lawyer or one of the spouses is corrupt!
> 
> ...


Wow, AC....so, so true. I hope I never, ever go through a divorce. 
I sat courtside watching my parents divorce, that took 3 years to finalize. It was HIS house, HIS money and HIS pension. The only reason he had the house he had and the money he had was because of her investment savvy. Sharp as a tack and learned early on that owning rental property on the coast was the way to go. He thought it was a "scam".  His claim that she "stole the house" from him is his delusion. I sat there at 19 years of age as he yelled at her that the house was "falling apart". He didn't want "old" anymore, including the house. She bought him out. The house was fully paid for and she wrote him a check for his portion. Everything else was split, including his pension. 38 years of marriage at the time the divorce was final. I think 50% was fair. He apparently does not, even 17 years later. Victim, total victim.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

I'd like to buy some divorce insurance too, but unfortunately I have an pre-existing condition. 

I agree that in a divorce both parties generally think they've been screwed, and both parties are generally right. In my case, I got the kids, and her parents largely put me through med school. She is outright convinced she got hosed. The b*tch should of studied harder as an undergrad, and she too could answer the phone with "Dr.". Medicine is a lot of work for a modest amount of money.

From my perspective, she cheated, lied, and brought multiple false allegations against me that took months to sort out, and get "right" in a court room. She "robbed" me of 4 months with my children, and did irrevocable harm to me financially. I will continue to support her from here to eternity at the expense of my kids, and continue to trade my vacation time for court days.

Frankly, I'd call it a push. In divorce everyone looses, especially the kids. Just one man's thoughts.

LIL


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Trust me, I studied plenty hard. I also fell in love and it clouded my mind. Do I regret it? No.
> Apparently I should have. :scratchhead::scratchhead::scratchhead:


Time to go back to school.

My wife and I have incredible amounts of stressed interactions to say the least.

However, to her credit she did finally finish up the degree she started when we both were in college--20 years later.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Brennan,

My ex and I had rougly 650k in assets when we got divorced.

She got 500k and I got the rest.

Almost 4 years down the road, guess who's back?

She's suing me for fraud.

Her evidence?

During mediation, I declared a checking account @2k (records indicate I was within a few hundred bucks of 100% correct)

I was already out of the house. By the time the divorce was final, I'd deposited a few paychecks and a bonus check that put the value @12k.

This is "fraud"?

In her summons, she states I'm guilty of fraud and that I "concealed" 75 thousand (or more) dollars.

This is the best she can do?

Not sure how she looks in the mirror.

She will not be collecting one more dime - I can guarantee that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Conrad said:


> Brennan,
> 
> My ex and I had rougly 650k in assets when we got divorced.
> 
> ...


Wow, just wow!!! Would you not admit that is the extreme though? How in the living hell did she get $650K?! 
I would never, ever expect more than what I put in. If you read my story, I put in plenty to help hubby. Even still, I am not entitled to his money, nor would I want it. It was my decision at the time and I would want to be fully on my own.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Wow, just wow!!! Would you not admit that is the extreme though? How in the living hell did she get $650K?!
> I would never, ever expect more than what I put in. If you read my story, I put in plenty to help hubby. Even still, I am not entitled to his money, nor would I want it. It was my decision at the time and I would want to be fully on my own.


"She" got 500k because I understand money and power.

I gravitated towards employment with incentive compensation and I negotiated it to my maximum benefit. Mix in a little luck and you have a rather large capital gain.

Mix in the idea that I always took 15 year mortgages and paid off the house she received.

Mix in the idea that I was staring at "lifetime alimony" of roughly 2000 a month. So, I staged a leveraged buy-out.

I figured it was a "win-win".

500k is enough to "re-start" - go to school - whatever.

She's already burned through it. She is FINALLY to the point where she's going to raise my son's rent. She's been coddling him his entire life.

Why did I agree to a lump sum?

Do you think for a minute that she'd ever marry anyone else if I was pumping 2 grand a month into that place so she could subsidize my son for eternity?

Gee - I wonder why men think they get a raw deal?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Well, I am late to joining this game but my ex-wife has complained about her situation in the divorce.

I am going to lay out our situation and you can play Judge Judy on this.

She did partially support me through chiropractic school, although I did work and chip in some. We were living together.

We got married during the end of chiro. school and then shortly thereafter, used 55K of her inheritance from her grandfather for a downpayment on a house. I actually wanted to rent for awhile but she talked me into it.

I worked exclusively the first 1.5 years, then she went back to work. . .worked her way up to a hospital administrator. Made more than me by the end of the marriage.

I fully participated in the house upkeep, maintenance, repairs, child rearing, food shopping, bill paying and doctor visits for kids. In fact, b/c I was self-employed, I often sacrificed taking call and other money opportunities because my career was more flexible.

End result:

I got half the house. She got half the business. Our retirement portfolio's were worth nearly the same so we kept those. I got the older car, she got the newer car. I waived alimony (it would have only been $125/week for 3 years). I get hte kids 40% of the time. I pay $130/week in child support.

My ex-wife feels incredibly screwed in that because she had 55K to chip in 15 years ago, that she should have gotten a dollar for dollar return on that contribution, even though I assumed the risk of the mortgage 2 house ago as we were upwardly mobile.

The idea though is that somewhere along the way, the money "transmutated" (the legal term) from being something "premarital" to becoming the marital asset (thus entitling me to 50/50). She is bitter about the 27K involved and cannot comprehend why she should have to pare back her lifestyle.

She says $130/week for 3 kids is chump change and her father has written me nasty emails.

Yet, both of these chowderheads were begging me to coparent my boys, who's behavior (my middle son), was deteriorating as of lately. I keep explaining it to her (and her attorney too. . who couldn't get thru to her, even he's tired of her) - you can't have it both ways - no overnights AND maximum child support.

My point of my share - many spouses feel screwed, not just men. A lot of men DO want to just up and leave, not parent, and then not pay child support. You can't have it both ways.

In this situation, yes, he is grappling with the fact that his retirement is "their retirement", that the money "transmutated" (if earned before the marriage) and was earned together in partnership.

I do feel for the alimony situation though. Many states are now starting to crack down on women who shack up with other men and still get a monthly check from ex-hubby. That is more common that you think and that would drive me crazy too, I must admit. And I would say 95% of women would not give up that monthly check in exchange for a wedding ring.

(be honest ladies, you wouldn't - in fact, I would say a perverse pleasure about it kicks in with most women on that)

Yes, divorce law has come a long way to becoming fairer, as Brennan notes, but it still has some ways to go with spousal support.

For the most part, I think we reached a fair and equitable conclusion and I do not complain about my child support or my parenting obligations. My ex-wife cannot wrap her head around the idea she has to pare back her lifestyle. She last told me that she was tired of my judging when I told her that. She makes 70K/year nad get 7K from me, after taxes. That's not chump change to me but I can assure you every woman out there feels undercompensated for child support and most men feel the strain.

It isn't until each is in a partnership sharing household expenses again until the financial pain of divorce becomes more managable.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Thank you all for your input. Conrad, again wow. I can totally understand your feelings. I have no idea how the courts can be so blind and so unfair.
In my friend's situation, he certainly isn't getting hosed like you did. I think he really thinks he is though. Many here have pointed out that even if everything is fair and equatable, emotions are hard to control. I think that is his main issue. 
To be real honest, I think he never thought she would leave. He refused to work on the marriage and thought everything was her issue. He is doing some serious wound licking right now and I feel for him. I do find myself having to be supportive friend while also wielding a 2x4. His ego is bruised and he is in victim mode right now. I hope he snaps out of it.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Brennan,

I think there are a couple of crosscurrents here.

1) I don't think any man objects to supporting his kids. We were created to perform this task. Building healthy, moral, adult people is hard work and it takes resources.

2) Mothers are key to building healthy, moral, adult people. Think how much time is spent on therapy de-programming what happened with "mom". MEM's post about how his wife lights up their home is so certainly true. Men simply cannot do it. I'm married to a woman like that.

3) Lifetime alimony.....

NOW we're getting into the sticky stuff. Let's say your wife does NOT accomplish task #1 and you are standing in a room (on your 44th birthday no less) looking at your daughter who has just stabbed herself (3 inch abdominal wound) with a butcher knife. AND this was the child you were "most" connected to. Your son has been "off limits" due to his sensitivity for most of your relationship.

Should you make a mortgage payment to such a woman every month for the entirety of her life? Should you sit back and subsidize the coddling (of your son) forever?

Or should you realize that she'll waste every dime anyway so just give her everything at once? Get her signature on the "waiver of maintenance". Then, several years later, when she is now actually facing the consequences of her inability to organize her life will she and your son have to figure out how to make it.

Is that mean? Or is that tough love (for him)?

Should I be bitter that the law forced me to waste nearly half a million dollars to "hope" that my son finally has to stand up?

"Only on the precipice do we evolve"

No damned doubt about that.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Brennan,

Everyone is in victim mode (especially men when it comes to finances) during a divorce.

Yet, he has choices. 

The main thing I would advise (and I know lastinline would disagree here) is you make out better negotiating.

*DO NOT GO TO THE MAT WITH A WOMAN IN COURT!!!!*

The courts bias towards women although that is also evolving/changing. That is, if it comes down to ruling, and a judge has to flip a coin between a man and a woman - he'll/she'll come down on the woman's side. 

I was careful about that - everytime they threatened court, I tried to counternegotiate a point.

Case in point: When I left the house, my wife tried to assert the fact that I had no right to come and out of my own home to co-parent my kids (or just come and go as I please). Her argument was I left so I forfeit all rights as a homeowner, despite me paying household support, which was substantial to me at the time.

My attorney argued - "No, he is still on the deed. He's still on the mortgage." He argued case law. He was elegant.

Her attorney said, "Well, he was disruptive to the home."

Guess what? She ruled that I was not come in my own home pending a full plenary hearing (settled before that). I mean, the whole case seemed to be going my way in that regard and boom. . .my jaw almost dropped when she ruled that.

The judge even asked her, "Why can't you leave for a few hours when he parents the children?" Her attorney had no intelligent reply.

In the end, she still got what she wanted - exclusive posession of the home during our divorce (but not home equity). I had to live in a little beach trailer during the divorce, which was fine in the summer, but take the kids to a single wide trailer that was often 58 degrees inside and we were tripping over each other and bored in the winter. It wasn't fun for me or the kids, let's just put it that way, while she either had "me time" at a 4 BDR McMansion (or a boyfriend over, who the heck knows)

I got 90% of what I wanted in the end but that day was a lesson:

*DO NOT GO TO THE MAT WITH A WOMAN IN COURT. *

She'll win.

You have to win by brains, not brawn and legal assertion.

I am rebuilding my career and my life now but let the above bolded statement go out to all men on this forum.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> Brennan,
> 
> Everyone is in victim mode (especially men when it comes to finances) during a divorce.
> 
> ...


I have detailed what I would get in the case of a divorce. There is a saying here in Texas: "Texas is hell on women and horses". That saying didn't just come about by accident. 
I would walk away with half the value of the house (as he would buy me out), half the assets/furniture/cars and if I am lucky, 3 years alimony after 17 years of marriage. Lawyer put it at 1 year. CS for youngest son and nothing for oldest as he is 18 but would still be living with me and would for the next 4-5 years. I cannot afford the mortgage payments so he would buy me out and he would keep the house. The house is appreciating at a rate of 17% a year. Old neighborhood, McMansions being built and the land is going for sky high. The same house I put 20% down on from my 401k.(considered marital assets). He walks away with his six figure salary (his MBA was paid for by my inheritance) and I am left with my non-degreed accountant salary. Fair? No. But that is how the chips would fall. 
Like I said, Texas is hell on women and horses. Good thing we aren't divorcing but we were about to, twice in the past. Sobering information to receive. I don't doubt however that if we did get divorced, my husband would say he got ****ed over. How? Seriously, how?


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> He walks away with his six figure salary (his MBA was paid for by my inheritance) and I am left with my non-degreed accountant salary. Fair? No. But that is how the chips would fall.


You might be able to recoup at least a part of paying for the MBA if you can prove it.

I can't speak for Texas, but lawyer I consulted with in California said that is in play in a divorce.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> You might be able to recoup at least a part of paying for the MBA if you can prove it.
> 
> I can't speak for Texas, but lawyer I consulted with in California said that is in play in a divorce.


Already did. It was 17 years ago that I paid for his graduate degree and the laws in Texas says that I benefited from his MBA, which I did. No money to get back. I got a "higher lifestyle" because of his degree. Funny, if we ever divorced the only person who would get the higher lifestyle is him. 
He would walk away with his salary and only CS to pay and maybe 3 years alimony if I am lucky. Courts here tend to par that down to about 1 or 2. 
Fair, right? 
Like I said, good thing we aren't divorcing and it was very eye opening for me and very sad at the same time.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Conrad said:


> 2) Mothers are key to building healthy, moral, adult people. Think how much time is spent on therapy de-programming what happened with "mom". MEM's post about how his wife lights up their home is so certainly true. Men simply cannot do it. I'm married to a woman like that.


I just plain do not agree with this. Some of the best stay-at-home parents in my community are Dads. Being a good parent is SKILL as well as tlc. Dad's can kiss boo boos. Dad's can learn effective positive discipline, teach problem solving skills.

I have never read MEM's account of his wife's stellar house brightening. But it is very challenging to imagine what she does that a man "simply cannot do".



> 3) Lifetime alimony.....


Does ANYONE support the notion of lifetime alimony? I think that notion is just insane. 

I don't see whether one accomplishes decent parenthood has anything to do with ALIMONY. But again, I don't think anyone has the right to have someone else pay for them to decide to be stay-at-home parents.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

VT,

It's strange that I've been accused of "hating women" here when it seems MEM and I share a true appreciation of what the right woman brings to a home.

And, as to "lifetime alimony"?

I know one person who supports it.

As I mentioned, she's back for more.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Conrad said:


> VT,
> 
> It's strange that I've been accused of "hating women" here when it seems MEM and I share a true appreciation of what the right woman brings to a home.
> 
> ...


Lifetime alimony is from an era that a woman cannot support herself. Trust me, I could support myself if we divorce but it would hurt. Even still, I would never, ever be cool with lifetime alimony.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Does ANYONE support the notion of lifetime alimony? I think that notion is just insane.


Just about every woman who gets that perk in California, that's who.

A sense of entitlement runs deep when someone can get it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> Just about every woman who gets that perk in California, that's who.
> 
> A sense of entitlement runs deep when someone can get it.


Well I was married in CA and I will not get that "perk" nor would I want it.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Well I was married in CA and I will not get that "perk" nor would I want it.


No fair, you don't qualify here anymore unless you establish residency. 

My wife, on the other hand? Shudder.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

The child support money for the kids is great, but still, it isn't always spent for the kids. I remember when my x sister-in-law's daughter was nearing 18 and child support was nearing and end, she never once mentioned anything about the child. Instead, she talked about how the loss of income could cause them to have to sell some of their goodies or not go on vacation as much.:scratchhead:

And what about the father? I get the kids too. I buy them clothes and food too. I'm currently paying in child support close to what my house payment was, yet I no longer have the house, I have a dump. Don't my kids deserve more than a dump when they are with dad?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

southbound said:


> The child support money for the kids is great, but still, it isn't always spent for the kids. I remember when my x sister-in-law's daughter was nearing 18 and child support was nearing and end, she never once mentioned anything about the child. Instead, she talked about how the loss of income could cause them to have to sell some of their goodies or not go on vacation as much.:scratchhead:
> 
> And what about the father? I get the kids too. I buy them clothes and food too. I'm currently paying in child support close to what my house payment was, yet I no longer have the house, I have a dump. Don't my kids deserve more than a dump when they are with dad?


That's what I hear so often. She goes on vacation on my dime, she is living it up on my dime. Unless you got totally robbed in your divorce, most women don't "live it up" on your money. Rather, they get child support and combined with their own income they decide hey, let's go somewhere fun. If they spend "your money" on vacation, that only means that they have to use their own when they get home. It is a balance to say the very least but men never see it that way. Apparently all divorced wives are to be miserable and broke. 
I have 7 divorced women as friends. 4 of them struggle to get by. Literally struggle but not one of their ex-husbands has any financial issue, not one.
These women aren't living it up and they are just surviving.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

Brennan said:


> That's what I hear so often. She goes on vacation on my dime, she is living it up on my dime. Unless you got totally robbed in your divorce, most women don't "live it up" on your money. Rather, they get child support and combined with their own income they decide hey, let's go somewhere fun. If they spend "your money" on vacation, that only means that they have to use their own when they get home. It is a balance to say the very least but men never see it that way. Apparently all divorced wives are to be miserable and broke.
> I have 7 divorced women as friends. 4 of them struggle to get by. Literally struggle but not one of their ex-husbands has any financial issue, not one.
> These women aren't living it up and they are just surviving.


I Guess it's just a cultural thing to me. I was raised very common and feel like once you have all your needs, like water, electricity, bed, car, clothes, everything else is a bonus, and i do apply that to myself. 

As for the money, it doesn't matter to me if she's spending the child support money or her money on vacation, I still give her money that contributes to her income. If she didn't have my child support money to boost her income to make a vacation possible, for example, she would spend her money on things for the kids and the extra would just go. 

Like I said, I'm paying for her house which means I can't afford anything very inviting for when the kids are with me. Don't the kids deserve something other than a dump when they visit me?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

southbound said:


> I Guess it's just a cultural thing to me. I was raised very common and feel like once you have all your needs, like water, electricity, bed, car, clothes, everything else is a bonus, and i do apply that to myself.
> 
> As for the money, it doesn't matter to me if she's spending the child support money or her money on vacation, I still give her money that contributes to her income. If she didn't have my child support money to boost her income to make a vacation possible, for example, she would spend her money on things for the kids and the extra would just go.
> 
> Like I said, I'm paying for her house which means I can't afford anything very inviting for when the kids are with me. Don't the kids deserve something other than a dump when they visit me?


Why are you paying for her house?


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Why are you paying for her house?


What I meant was, the amount I'm paying her in child support just so happens to be within a few dollars of the house payment. So, that makes it feel like I still get to cut a check for the house she lives in, but it doesn't help my house situation any.

perhaps people's situations are different as well. She and I live close and we are civil concerning kid visitation. I've had the kids more than she has in the last month due to various reasons. I see them quite often even during regular times. So, I'm spending money on kids too. Yet, I'm not getting a check to help out with expenses, but I get to write one every month.


----------

