A Christian organization helping couples build healthier marriages and families.
Here's a new thread to post on regarding 'financial responsibilities after divorce'!
(the other thread SOCIETY IS QUICK TO DIVORCE can stay on that subject)
BerthaAgain: dallasapple: BerthaAgain: dallasapple: BerthaAgain: I totally agree...and I'm a woman. While I believe they're BOTH responsible for the their children, I think the spouse who initiates the divorce should have more financial responsibility in child support, and should also have to pay alimony! And that means if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, she's going to have to go get a job! Maybe she'll think twice before initiating the divorce! If the husband wants the divorce, he'll be paying! My h adamently did not want a divorce, but it happened anyway without his consent. (again, SO EASY for her). Then, he had his kids equal amount of time -- custody split 50/50...YET, he had to pay child support to his ex-wife because he made more money and the court wanted to "even out" the households for the kids. Craziness. How about SHE "even out" the households by getting another job?!?! She had plenty of time to work while he had the kids 1/2 the week, every week. Any(with the exeption of the very wealthy) stay at home mom is going to have to get a job if she is divorced.Whether she is the one who initiates the divorce or he is. I have yet to meet a woman who has gained financially or had her standard of living go up by divorce. Even the woman in the OP.What is her concern?Financial security.From everything I have read and all the people I know personally both individuals usually suffer a lowered standard of living.Eventually they may recover but some never do. Love Dallas True. But, still, the laws don't make sense...why should my h have paid to maintain a home for them and the living expenses half the time PLUS pay HER, to maintain her household with them. It simply wasn't fair...when you took my h's salary minus child support, and her salary plus child support...they equalled....Yet HE worked many more hours, had a more stressful job, and did NOT want the divorce...plus, on top of that, he maintained the insurance and still paid 1/2 medical/dental expenses and other incidentals!?!?!?!?!?!?!! And, technically, he got off "easy" based on what the courts could have ordered him to pay! It truly makes no sense. I still think they SHOULD take into consideration who initiated the divorce! I have no idea what state you live in.But whenever my husband or I ever got desperate enough to consider divorce.He would NOT have to pay to maintain my household.IF I qualified he might be ordered to pay me alimony and the MAX is for 3 years.IF I was awarded custody of our minor child the amount of child support he would have to pay I seriously doubt would exceed what he spends on the child already now. Like I said I dont know what state you live in.But I would not "gain" financially from divorce and as I stated in my previous post I would suffer a major decline in standard of living. Love Dallas I never said anything about "GAIN". No one gains...not the husband, not the wife, and certainly not the children. How could anyone possibly gain when one household is split into two??
dallasapple: BerthaAgain: dallasapple: BerthaAgain: I totally agree...and I'm a woman. While I believe they're BOTH responsible for the their children, I think the spouse who initiates the divorce should have more financial responsibility in child support, and should also have to pay alimony! And that means if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, she's going to have to go get a job! Maybe she'll think twice before initiating the divorce! If the husband wants the divorce, he'll be paying! My h adamently did not want a divorce, but it happened anyway without his consent. (again, SO EASY for her). Then, he had his kids equal amount of time -- custody split 50/50...YET, he had to pay child support to his ex-wife because he made more money and the court wanted to "even out" the households for the kids. Craziness. How about SHE "even out" the households by getting another job?!?! She had plenty of time to work while he had the kids 1/2 the week, every week. Any(with the exeption of the very wealthy) stay at home mom is going to have to get a job if she is divorced.Whether she is the one who initiates the divorce or he is. I have yet to meet a woman who has gained financially or had her standard of living go up by divorce. Even the woman in the OP.What is her concern?Financial security.From everything I have read and all the people I know personally both individuals usually suffer a lowered standard of living.Eventually they may recover but some never do. Love Dallas True. But, still, the laws don't make sense...why should my h have paid to maintain a home for them and the living expenses half the time PLUS pay HER, to maintain her household with them. It simply wasn't fair...when you took my h's salary minus child support, and her salary plus child support...they equalled....Yet HE worked many more hours, had a more stressful job, and did NOT want the divorce...plus, on top of that, he maintained the insurance and still paid 1/2 medical/dental expenses and other incidentals!?!?!?!?!?!?!! And, technically, he got off "easy" based on what the courts could have ordered him to pay! It truly makes no sense. I still think they SHOULD take into consideration who initiated the divorce! I have no idea what state you live in.But whenever my husband or I ever got desperate enough to consider divorce.He would NOT have to pay to maintain my household.IF I qualified he might be ordered to pay me alimony and the MAX is for 3 years.IF I was awarded custody of our minor child the amount of child support he would have to pay I seriously doubt would exceed what he spends on the child already now. Like I said I dont know what state you live in.But I would not "gain" financially from divorce and as I stated in my previous post I would suffer a major decline in standard of living. Love Dallas
BerthaAgain: dallasapple: BerthaAgain: I totally agree...and I'm a woman. While I believe they're BOTH responsible for the their children, I think the spouse who initiates the divorce should have more financial responsibility in child support, and should also have to pay alimony! And that means if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, she's going to have to go get a job! Maybe she'll think twice before initiating the divorce! If the husband wants the divorce, he'll be paying! My h adamently did not want a divorce, but it happened anyway without his consent. (again, SO EASY for her). Then, he had his kids equal amount of time -- custody split 50/50...YET, he had to pay child support to his ex-wife because he made more money and the court wanted to "even out" the households for the kids. Craziness. How about SHE "even out" the households by getting another job?!?! She had plenty of time to work while he had the kids 1/2 the week, every week. Any(with the exeption of the very wealthy) stay at home mom is going to have to get a job if she is divorced.Whether she is the one who initiates the divorce or he is. I have yet to meet a woman who has gained financially or had her standard of living go up by divorce. Even the woman in the OP.What is her concern?Financial security.From everything I have read and all the people I know personally both individuals usually suffer a lowered standard of living.Eventually they may recover but some never do. Love Dallas True. But, still, the laws don't make sense...why should my h have paid to maintain a home for them and the living expenses half the time PLUS pay HER, to maintain her household with them. It simply wasn't fair...when you took my h's salary minus child support, and her salary plus child support...they equalled....Yet HE worked many more hours, had a more stressful job, and did NOT want the divorce...plus, on top of that, he maintained the insurance and still paid 1/2 medical/dental expenses and other incidentals!?!?!?!?!?!?!! And, technically, he got off "easy" based on what the courts could have ordered him to pay! It truly makes no sense. I still think they SHOULD take into consideration who initiated the divorce!
dallasapple: BerthaAgain: I totally agree...and I'm a woman. While I believe they're BOTH responsible for the their children, I think the spouse who initiates the divorce should have more financial responsibility in child support, and should also have to pay alimony! And that means if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, she's going to have to go get a job! Maybe she'll think twice before initiating the divorce! If the husband wants the divorce, he'll be paying! My h adamently did not want a divorce, but it happened anyway without his consent. (again, SO EASY for her). Then, he had his kids equal amount of time -- custody split 50/50...YET, he had to pay child support to his ex-wife because he made more money and the court wanted to "even out" the households for the kids. Craziness. How about SHE "even out" the households by getting another job?!?! She had plenty of time to work while he had the kids 1/2 the week, every week. Any(with the exeption of the very wealthy) stay at home mom is going to have to get a job if she is divorced.Whether she is the one who initiates the divorce or he is. I have yet to meet a woman who has gained financially or had her standard of living go up by divorce. Even the woman in the OP.What is her concern?Financial security.From everything I have read and all the people I know personally both individuals usually suffer a lowered standard of living.Eventually they may recover but some never do. Love Dallas
BerthaAgain: I totally agree...and I'm a woman. While I believe they're BOTH responsible for the their children, I think the spouse who initiates the divorce should have more financial responsibility in child support, and should also have to pay alimony! And that means if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, she's going to have to go get a job! Maybe she'll think twice before initiating the divorce! If the husband wants the divorce, he'll be paying! My h adamently did not want a divorce, but it happened anyway without his consent. (again, SO EASY for her). Then, he had his kids equal amount of time -- custody split 50/50...YET, he had to pay child support to his ex-wife because he made more money and the court wanted to "even out" the households for the kids. Craziness. How about SHE "even out" the households by getting another job?!?! She had plenty of time to work while he had the kids 1/2 the week, every week.
I totally agree...and I'm a woman. While I believe they're BOTH responsible for the their children, I think the spouse who initiates the divorce should have more financial responsibility in child support, and should also have to pay alimony! And that means if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, she's going to have to go get a job! Maybe she'll think twice before initiating the divorce! If the husband wants the divorce, he'll be paying!
My h adamently did not want a divorce, but it happened anyway without his consent. (again, SO EASY for her). Then, he had his kids equal amount of time -- custody split 50/50...YET, he had to pay child support to his ex-wife because he made more money and the court wanted to "even out" the households for the kids. Craziness. How about SHE "even out" the households by getting another job?!?! She had plenty of time to work while he had the kids 1/2 the week, every week.
Any(with the exeption of the very wealthy) stay at home mom is going to have to get a job if she is divorced.Whether she is the one who initiates the divorce or he is.
I have yet to meet a woman who has gained financially or had her standard of living go up by divorce.
Even the woman in the OP.What is her concern?Financial security.From everything I have read and all the people I know personally both individuals usually suffer a lowered standard of living.Eventually they may recover but some never do.
Love
Dallas
True.
But, still, the laws don't make sense...why should my h have paid to maintain a home for them and the living expenses half the time PLUS pay HER, to maintain her household with them. It simply wasn't fair...when you took my h's salary minus child support, and her salary plus child support...they equalled....Yet HE worked many more hours, had a more stressful job, and did NOT want the divorce...plus, on top of that, he maintained the insurance and still paid 1/2 medical/dental expenses and other incidentals!?!?!?!?!?!?!! And, technically, he got off "easy" based on what the courts could have ordered him to pay! It truly makes no sense. I still think they SHOULD take into consideration who initiated the divorce!
I have no idea what state you live in.But whenever my husband or I ever got desperate enough to consider divorce.He would NOT have to pay to maintain my household.IF I qualified he might be ordered to pay me alimony and the MAX is for 3 years.IF I was awarded custody of our minor child the amount of child support he would have to pay I seriously doubt would exceed what he spends on the child already now.
Like I said I dont know what state you live in.But I would not "gain" financially from divorce and as I stated in my previous post I would suffer a major decline in standard of living.
I never said anything about "GAIN". No one gains...not the husband, not the wife, and certainly not the children. How could anyone possibly gain when one household is split into two??
The implication is certainly there Bertha. It appears as though you are upset because your husband is paying too much. What exactly are you objecting to?
BTW I agree with you, no one gains in divorce. I guess what I'm wondering is what is it that you, DiC & Chaz are suggesting should happen in these cases? Take into account that women generally make a lot less than men do in the work force.
I absolutely hate the idea of alimony for the spouse that divorces...to me that is outrageous. But child support is a whole other thing.
I don't believe I "implied" that anyone gains?
Yes I'm upset because my husband pays too much! But are you forgetting I've been on the other side of this equation too? I think many are just out more for 'revenge' when it comes to finances after divorce, because that really is the only means of leverage one has after divorce...try to take 'em for everything! Those who are moral enough NOT to use the children as pawns. Even though my h left me, I am still all for what is FAIR. And THAT -- the UNfairness -- is what I am objecting to. Whether it's unfair financially to the husband or the wife. Divorce is sad. Just split it up financially in a fair manner, and take care of your kids.
oops...my reply got imbedded in BHL's reply when I cut&pasted:
this was from me:
dallasapple: And I dont know any woman with an average IQ and can do basic math that would not realize at BEST she may be able to maintain her standard of living ..that is if she is a carreer woman ..or has some kind of decent job.But even then the fact of the matter is that isn teven most likely going to be the case and she knows she will have to do without things and so will her children. There(in the majority of cases) is no financial insentive for a woman to divorce her husband.And in fact as I pointed out..in many cases the man stands to gain in the long haul if he has a dependant wife such as I.
And I dont know any woman with an average IQ and can do basic math that would not realize at BEST she may be able to maintain her standard of living ..that is if she is a carreer woman ..or has some kind of decent job.But even then the fact of the matter is that isn teven most likely going to be the case and she knows she will have to do without things and so will her children.
There(in the majority of cases) is no financial insentive for a woman to divorce her husband.And in fact as I pointed out..in many cases the man stands to gain in the long haul if he has a dependant wife such as I.
I agree Dallas. Apparently we women are not given a whole lot of credit...at least by DiC. Because we aren't smart enough to know that we won't gain financially by divorce.
I work full time yet I know w/out a doubt that my children & I would suffer great financial loss if I were to divorce my husband. I doubt that the average woman is naive enough to believe she'd gain finacially from divorce.
------
I don't believe that DIC or I ever said that anyone gains financially from divorce. As a matter of fact, we've both indicated that everyone's lives depreciate financially after divorce.
We, I should speak for myself, *I* know you and your children would suffer a great financial loss if you were to divorce your husband, depsite the fact that you work full-time. I would too. Anyone would.
Again...no one gains when a one household is split into two households, everyone suffers a financial loss.
BecauseHeLives:I guess what I'm wondering is what is it that you, DiC & Chaz are suggesting should happen in these cases?
chaz345: BecauseHeLives:I guess what I'm wondering is what is it that you, DiC & Chaz are suggesting should happen in these cases?An honest assessment by the court as to who can actually afford what. An elimination of the assumption that the male is the one that pays for the bulk of the costs of the children. If it's a case where the woman has no job skills because she's been a SAHM for a decade or more, then require that she show evidence that she's working towards gaining marketable skills and have automatic reviews of the situation every 6 months to 1 year rather than requiring that the man pay all the court costs for both sides to review things. An automatic review if either of them get remarried.
I'd like to add to that:
stay-at-home-MOM *or* stay-at-home-DAD! everything stated goes vice-versa.
There's some formula the state uses to calculate how much it takes to raise a child...that amount should be either:
- split evenly if both parents have an income and divorce is mututal
- split unevenly based on who initiated the divorce, maybe 60/40 (to deter from a divorce being so appealing)
Also, if one parent was staying at home, a period of time of alimony reasonable for them to gain skills and employment
This child support amount I'm talking about should be attached to the CHILD...so split 50/50 or 60/40 or whatever split...THEN, further divided by where the child resides. So if parents have joint custody and spit ends up 50/50 -- no amount is paid. If child resides primarly at one parent, then that percentage should be calculated to how much the visitation-parent pays the custodial parent. FURTHERMORE, there should be accountability to how that money is being spent. (in our case, sometimes our kids had no winter coat, or no light in their room...how could this be? where was the child support money? their mother should've bought them a coat and a lamp, etc...)
divorce in church:I already have said, but will summarize. I have a few beliefs1. No matter what, the kids must be provoded for, however that has to happen.2. Given number 1 above as always valid, the financial aspects of divorce should be geared to limiting divorce, by throwing barriers to no fault divorces. Because, if the marriage stays intact...well, the kids are provided for.Its that simple
Im sorry..but what you are talking about is making divorce illegal or unatainable if certain criteria isnt met IOW some sort of legal cause.I mean is that what you mean by barriers I may be assuming to much.
dallasapple: divorce in church:I already have said, but will summarize. I have a few beliefs1. No matter what, the kids must be provoded for, however that has to happen.2. Given number 1 above as always valid, the financial aspects of divorce should be geared to limiting divorce, by throwing barriers to no fault divorces. Because, if the marriage stays intact...well, the kids are provided for.Its that simple Im sorry..but what you are talking about is making divorce illegal or unatainable if certain criteria isnt met IOW some sort of legal cause.I mean is that what you mean by barriers I may be assuming to much. Love Dallas
divorce in church: dallasapple: divorce in church:I already have said, but will summarize. I have a few beliefs1. No matter what, the kids must be provoded for, however that has to happen.2. Given number 1 above as always valid, the financial aspects of divorce should be geared to limiting divorce, by throwing barriers to no fault divorces. Because, if the marriage stays intact...well, the kids are provided for.Its that simple Im sorry..but what you are talking about is making divorce illegal or unatainable if certain criteria isnt met IOW some sort of legal cause.I mean is that what you mean by barriers I may be assuming to much. Love Dallas No thats not what I mean. I mean if the person filing a no fault divorce had some UP FRONT blowback....that, if they were willing to suffer it, they can go right on ahead and file. But the blowback would be....you file no fault....you move out, kids stay, and you pay (if you can). Divorce still ligal and possible, juist couple of hoops, it gibes you different shades of "green grass" to compare then you have today.
But that would not be fair to ones who file under no fault who do have just cause.And or what about if BOTH of them want the divorce.
If you have two people in complete agreement they do not want to remain married and there is no other 'cause" other than they just believe they made a mistake who then should file and suffer this blow back?
What if for some reason a spouse has a spouse who has committed adultery.And you wish not to put that on record for privacy reasons.Or you opt for no fault because from what I understand filing for cause is more timely and difficult there fore more of a hassle and expense.
Or the other way around right? I mean there are SAHD's too.
The first part I agree with.
The second part, whose going to pay for the training/schooling it would take to prove the SAHM/D is attempting to contribute close to or equal to the primary bread winner?
This, as it is posted I completely agree with.
dallasapple: divorce in church: dallasapple: divorce in church:I already have said, but will summarize. I have a few beliefs1. No matter what, the kids must be provoded for, however that has to happen.2. Given number 1 above as always valid, the financial aspects of divorce should be geared to limiting divorce, by throwing barriers to no fault divorces. Because, if the marriage stays intact...well, the kids are provided for.Its that simple Im sorry..but what you are talking about is making divorce illegal or unatainable if certain criteria isnt met IOW some sort of legal cause.I mean is that what you mean by barriers I may be assuming to much. Love Dallas No thats not what I mean. I mean if the person filing a no fault divorce had some UP FRONT blowback....that, if they were willing to suffer it, they can go right on ahead and file. But the blowback would be....you file no fault....you move out, kids stay, and you pay (if you can). Divorce still ligal and possible, juist couple of hoops, it gibes you different shades of "green grass" to compare then you have today. But that would not be fair to ones who file under no fault who do have just cause.And or what about if BOTH of them want the divorce. If you have two people in complete agreement they do not want to remain married and there is no other 'cause" other than they just believe they made a mistake who then should file and suffer this blow back? What if for some reason a spouse has a spouse who has committed adultery.And you wish not to put that on record for privacy reasons.Or you opt for no fault because from what I understand filing for cause is more timely and difficult there fore more of a hassle and expense. Love Dallas
BerthaAgain:stay-at-home-MOM *or* stay-at-home-DAD! everything stated goes vice-versa.
Agree but the current system is so skewed that the wife of a SAHD could quite her job before filing and he'd end up being required to be the primary financial supporter anyway.
BerthaAgain:Also, if one parent was staying at home, a period of time of alimony reasonable for them to gain skills and employment
Agree but I'd say that the alimony goes into a fund and can only be spent for approved educational costs as determined by the court. IOW you can't use the alimomy to go get a degree in something that won't make a marketable skill.
I just think this scramble to just keep people married at all cost ..to keep people who do not want to be married in the marriage to avoid some sort of punitive damage for not wanting to live with someone anymore is a violation of their freedoms.Your talking about basically punishing someone because they dont want to be married anymore.
And I'll tell you what.I personally would not want my husband to stay married to me in order to avoid "blow back".
If you put someone in that position ..I think you are talking about making a sad and bad situation worse.I would highly resent it if I was influenced or threatened by laws to stay married or automatically lose my children and my home regardless of what I have contributed to keeping the home over the years or if I was the better parent.If those laws were in place?Im a smart cookie.I would refuse to to get married without a pre-nupt that would give me the option to divorce no-fault without the "blow back" and if you dont want to sign it no deal.
