If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Florida lawmakers want to end life-long alimony payments, make alimony and child custody laws more fair. Naturally, some people have more sand than Daytona Beach in their vaginas over this   (foxnews.com) divider line 156
    More: Hero, child custody, Rick Scott, Daytona Beach, lawmakers  
•       •       •

2681 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2013 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-24 06:53:07 AM
Family court reform has been severely needed for a long time. It is good to see some action on this issue.
 
2013-04-24 08:55:34 AM
This is just another assault in the war on traditional marriage.
 
2013-04-24 09:01:43 AM
I'm confused... The Republicans are on the correct side of a fight. And they're Florida Republicans, to boot.

today.ucla.edu

/I also see that the people complaining about this are largely women... why don't women want to be treated as the equals of men? Or does "equality" mean "we only get the benefits, none of the drawbacks"?
 
2013-04-24 09:15:34 AM
If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.
 
2013-04-24 09:27:00 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


This.  I can get that if a woman married you while getting her MRS degree and you get divorced after the kids are raised odds are she's not going to suddenly do really well on the job market.

If you're really that worried in the first few years of marriage that you're coming with disproportionate assets (ie in your 18 months example) you're frankly a complete idiot if you don't get a prenup.  Goes for men AND women.
 
2013-04-24 09:32:30 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


Something like this...?

FTFA

Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary.

 But yeah, I agree that if someone gave up their life to be a homemaker, raise the kids, whatever, and then get traded in for the newer model, they should get fair compensation to try to rebuild their life.
 
2013-04-24 09:38:01 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Something like this...?

FTFA

Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary.

 But yeah, I agree that if someone gave up their life to be a homemaker, raise the kids, whatever, and then get traded in for the newer model, they should get fair compensation to try to rebuild their life.


Not exactly.  I think that if a woman has been married for 25 years and finds herself on the outs hovering around 50 there should probably be no sunset clause (unless she remarries).  At that point its way too late to have kids (responsibly) or to have time to move far up a career ladder.
 
2013-04-24 09:40:09 AM
Don't get married. Spend that money on a retainer for a good lawyer.
 
2013-04-24 09:43:58 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


What I was thinking.
 
2013-04-24 09:45:21 AM
State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill "one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited."

Biatch please. Try being on the receiving end of family court then come back and complain about something being mean spirited.

My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.
 
2013-04-24 10:03:23 AM
One sided and anti-woman?

So what you're saying is that alimony payments are also one sided and predominately pro-woman?
 
2013-04-24 10:03:58 AM
Why no just legitimize the misstress/cuckold system again?

A good family doesn't divorce. They just stop farking each other but stay together fo the family. Not just the children, but the family as a whole.
 
2013-04-24 10:05:27 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-24 10:14:42 AM
My mother was always the breadwinner of the two up until my parents divorced, so I'm really getting a kick....
 
2013-04-24 10:16:34 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that lifelong alimony, in modern times, is bullshiat.

And now I'll kick back and listen to some good old fashioned divorce related misogyny.
 
2013-04-24 10:17:02 AM

sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.


How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.

From what I've heard down here if you tried something like that, you'd be shot, set on fire, and torn into bitty pieces.
 
2013-04-24 10:17:31 AM
This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow
 
2013-04-24 10:18:59 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


It's not that sexist.  There's very little sand there due to erosion.
 
2013-04-24 10:19:26 AM
Stupid biatch ex-wife left me for .38 Special and the judge let her take my Camaro.  Not just one guy in .38 Special I'll add.

She is dating .38 Special.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:16 AM

Rapmaster2000: Stupid biatch ex-wife left me for .38 Special and the judge let her take my Camaro.  Not just one guy in .38 Special I'll add.

She is dating .38 Special.


You're own fault.  You held onto her too loosely.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:17 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


What's wrong with being sexy?
 
2013-04-24 10:21:43 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I wholeheartedly agree that lifelong alimony, in modern times, is bullshiat.

And now I'll kick back and listen to some good old fashioned divorce related misogyny.


I see only one post that could be remotely interpreted as misogyny so far.
 
2013-04-24 10:22:26 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


What's wrong with being sexy?
 
2013-04-24 10:22:54 AM

doyner: Uranus Is Huge!: I wholeheartedly agree that lifelong alimony, in modern times, is bullshiat.

And now I'll kick back and listen to some good old fashioned divorce related misogyny.

I see only one post that could be remotely interpreted as misogyny so far.


Just wait.
 
2013-04-24 10:23:34 AM
In other news, they are doing this in Florida:

kpho.images.worldnow.com

Not sure how I feel about this. Your punishment never really ends - you can do public urination and get exposure to a minor if a kid walks by, and if you ever had any kind of violence in your past, you can actually get slapped with a violent sex offender label.  How about we reform this a bit too, eh?:
 
2013-04-24 10:23:47 AM
Wifely duties should be attached to all alimony payments.

/unfortunately, the very fact the divorce occurs means wifely duties weren't being performed
/amidoinitrite?
/seriously, any legal process should be reviewed from time to time...like forcibly returning escaped slaves or allowing free blacks to be kidnapped and sold into slavery...or women not getting the vote...or not having a court-appointed representative in a criminal trial...
 
2013-04-24 10:24:20 AM
midigod:

Im going to go with great minds think alike?
 
2013-04-24 10:25:29 AM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Family court reform has been severely needed for a long time. It is good to see some action on this issue.


Eeeeyup.
 
2013-04-24 10:26:37 AM
My dad is stuck paying alimony until my mom is sixty-five, and it's a significant six figures. He currently lives in a podunk apartment, and she moved into a new house with another dude where they live it up on his dime. Fine woman, my mother.
 
2013-04-24 10:27:39 AM
Look, if people can get out of prison after serving time for murder, a person shouldn't have to pay for life for marrying that b*tch.

What? Hey! Ow! Stop!
 
2013-04-24 10:27:55 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


Don't they do that currently? Take into account the length and financial contributions of each in the marriage?
 
2013-04-24 10:29:32 AM

Aidan: sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.

How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.

From what I've heard down here if you tried something like that, you'd be shot, set on fire, and torn into bitty pieces.


It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.
 
2013-04-24 10:30:53 AM
FTFA

"The average guy with an alimony payment couldn't retire," said Hitner, who is divorced. "And I was getting calls from (soon-to-be) second wives ready to cancel their weddings" out of concern that an ex-wife could cut into their paychecks.

I had been under the impression that if joint filing pushed you into a higher tax bracket you might actually pay  less alimony.  Does anyone know how someone could take alimony from an ex-spouse's new spouse?
 
2013-04-24 10:31:05 AM

sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.


Jesus fark. That ain't right.
 
2013-04-24 10:31:43 AM
On the one hand, as noted, family court could do with a review and possible adjustments/reform.

On the other hand, it's Republicans in Florida, so there's a decent chance they'll screw it up somehow.
 
2013-04-24 10:31:49 AM
I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.
 
2013-04-24 10:32:41 AM
State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill "one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited."

So, which of the provisions are one-sided, anti-woman, or mean-spirited?

-- barring payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage
-- benefit caps based on salary
-- equal child custody by default (primarily in no-fault divorce)

... because all of those things sound eminently sensible to the point of "why haven't they always been like that?" to me.

//I mean, it's Fox News, I guess they could be leaving out some significant part of the bill to up the outrage quotient.
 
2013-04-24 10:33:17 AM
Anti- woman? I find the concept that a woman needs a man to pay for her indefinitely to be be much more anti woman than liked alimony. And including the new spouses income in the equation just seems biatchy to me...
 
2013-04-24 10:33:42 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


Really?

Never heard the phrase "sand in your vagina" applied to men before?

First day on the internet?
 
2013-04-24 10:34:31 AM
Be careful about who you fark.

Be even more careful about who you marry.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:00 AM

Aidan: sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.

How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.


Talk to us when you are divorced parent now, not a kid 20 years ago.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:45 AM
Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:58 AM
I have a good friend that is basically getting farked by this same inequity.

Wife starts cheating on him (online) 5 minutes (not literally but close enough) after that finish adopting a child and ~6 years into their marriage.  As the "mom" she gets custody and a huge slice of his paycheck.  He can't get married to his now longtime girlfriend because she also makes decent money and the alimony payment would immediately factor in her income should the two of them get married.

So to summarize: get cheated on, get financially pummeled because you have a penis, and get prevented from getting married again because ... well, hell if know why
 
2013-04-24 10:36:28 AM

SisterMaryElephant: Be careful about who you fark.

Be even more careful about who you marry.


Be most careful about who you divorce.

/sometimes a garage and a basement and a man cave are wonderful things. plus the hooker on the corner
 
2013-04-24 10:36:47 AM

DrewCurtisJr: Don't they do that currently? Take into account the length and financial contributions of each in the marriage?


Theoretically, sure, but the lawyers can talk it up and do the usual 'bribing the judge' bit.

This institutes hard caps, so if your alimony is 30% of your salary and you were married five years, the court _cannot_ order you to pay more than 30% of your salary and _cannot_ order you to pay for longer than three years.
 
2013-04-24 10:37:41 AM

Fizpez: So to summarize: get cheated on, get financially pummeled because you have a penis, and get prevented from getting married again because ... well, hell if know why


For his own good.
 
2013-04-24 10:38:02 AM
In before this turns into an MRA thread.

I definitely agree with limiting the number of years of alimony based on the length of the marriage.  Someone getting a lifetime of payments from a marriage that only lasted a short period of time is just stupid.

/Oh, and any time anyone ever seriously uses the phrase "the manner to which they are accustomed" should get punched right in the babymaker.
 
2013-04-24 10:38:39 AM

The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.


If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.
 
2013-04-24 10:38:41 AM

Jim_Callahan: State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill "one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited."

So, which of the provisions are one-sided, anti-woman, or mean-spirited?

-- barring payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage
-- benefit caps based on salary
-- equal child custody by default (primarily in no-fault divorce)

... because all of those things sound eminently sensible to the point of "why haven't they always been like that?" to me.

//I mean, it's Fox News, I guess they could be leaving out some significant part of the bill to up the outrage quotient.


Don't you know that expecting women to be accountable and responsible is sexist?
 
2013-04-24 10:40:16 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Fizpez: So to summarize: get cheated on, get financially pummeled because you have a penis, and get prevented from getting married again because ... well, hell if know why

For his own good.


OK THAT was funny :)
 
2013-04-24 10:42:02 AM
Rather than 1/2 the length of the marriage, how about 1.5 times the marriage?

This means the longer you are married and he/she is out of the work force the longer you have to carry them.

Married 1 day, 1.5 days of payments.
Married 1 year, 1.5 years of payments.
Married 20 years, 30 years of payments.

Means being in a long term relationship is long term. During and after.
 
2013-04-24 10:42:11 AM

sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.


I would wager good money that the reason you got audited is because your ex still claimed the deduction too (even if she told you she wouldn't).  The IRS doesn't care who takes the deduction, so long as only one person takes it.   Two people taking a dependent deduction on the same person will trigger a review.  IRS will pick one of the two, ask that person so prove they are entitled to take the deduction, and if he/she cannot, they're screwed.
 
2013-04-24 10:42:53 AM

FirstNationalBastard: The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.

If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.


Absolutely. We have the technology to prevent that kind of thing from happening. And as a staunch pro-choicer, I also believe a man should be part of the discussion of whether to abort a pregnancy. I believe it's ultimately the woman's decision but if she chooses to have a child when the man wanted to abort, he shouldn't be forced to pay full child support. Pro-choice means taking responsibility for those choices, too.
 
2013-04-24 10:43:21 AM
Whats a girl to do if she can't move to Florida, marry some rich horndog, divorce him a year later, take half his stuff and then make him pay her the majority of his income for the rest of his life?
 
2013-04-24 10:44:05 AM
I am against limiting alimony because women are the inferior sex and therefore need to be supported by men.What if she's ugly and can't remarried?How is the woman going to survive?
 
2013-04-24 10:44:30 AM

FirstNationalBastard: The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.

If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.


That would interact really weirdly with step-children, adopted children, custody, etc.  I think the current system of "if you claim the kid as your own, you're responsible, blood or not" is probably the best compromise.  If you're suspicious, you need to get the test done and file a formal rejection before you sign off on the hospital listing you as the father.

Erring on the side of having the kid provided for is one of the few things I  dont have a problem with in the current system.  That  should be the primary concern of the family courts.
 
2013-04-24 10:44:45 AM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Whats a girl to do if she can't move to Florida, marry some rich horndog, divorce him a year later, take half his stuff and then make him pay her the majority of his income for the rest of his life?


Move to most any of the other 50 states, marry some rich horndog, divorce him year later, take half....
 
2013-04-24 10:45:40 AM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Whats a girl to do if she can't move to Florida, marry some rich horndog, divorce him a year later, take half his stuff and then make him pay her the majority of his income for the rest of his life?


How about get an education or learn a valuable skill and become a productive member of society?
 
2013-04-24 10:47:22 AM

farker99: Rather than 1/2 the length of the marriage, how about 1.5 times the marriage?

This means the longer you are married and he/she is out of the work force the longer you have to carry them.


Um, if you don't think that statement also applies to 1/2-length or that the proportions somehow scale differently, I think you may need to go back and review your basic math a bit... that's kind of how multiplication works whether you're multiplying by .00001 or 100000.
 
2013-04-24 10:50:26 AM

FirstNationalBastard: doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.

Something like this...?

FTFA

Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary.

 But yeah, I agree that if someone gave up their life to be a homemaker, raise the kids, whatever, and then get traded in for the newer model, they should get fair compensation to try to rebuild their life.


That cuts both ways.
 
2013-04-24 10:50:36 AM
I'm not a woman, but if I were, there is no way I'd agree to take myself out of the workplace for twenty-plus years of my life just to raise children and leaving myself at the financial mercy of my husband.  I know this is still a dream for some women (and probably some men too), but the risks are just too high.  Or maybe if a woman decides to do that she should get a "pre-nup" first that clarifies what she will get in return if the marriage ends?
 
2013-04-24 10:55:27 AM

Kome: I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.


Sounds like your dad had your moms lawyer in his pocket.
 
2013-04-24 10:58:08 AM
"There is nothing one sided about how divorce court works! everyone is equal!"

"Hey we're going to make some changes to the rules here that will effect both sides of the courtroom"

"No fair! divorce courts are there to help women !"
 
2013-04-24 10:59:48 AM
Those receiving alimony can no longer tap into the paychecks of their ex-spouse's new husband or wife

whoa, this was happening?  If I marry someone who got divorced and is paying alimony, my spouse's divorcee could tap into my paychecks for alimony?  That is farking ridiculous.
 
2013-04-24 11:02:00 AM
I have to say, my state is completely backwards in most regards, but Texas does alimony pretty well.

0-10 years = you get nothing, unless the man abused you (or cheated, IIRC)
10-20 = 5 years of alimony, 20% of the man's income, capped at 5,000 monthly
20-30 = 7 years
30+ = 10 years

If the woman cheats? She (likely) gets nothing. If she fails to try to get a job or something to support herself within a reasonable time frame? The payments stop. If she doesn't marry, but moves in some dude to party on the man's dime? The payments stop. If she gets most of the assets in the divorce/runs up a bunch of credit before the divorce/actually has the means to support herself? Her alimony amount is lessened.
 
2013-04-24 11:02:00 AM
lol men
 
2013-04-24 11:02:08 AM

FirstNationalBastard: /I also see that the people complaining about this are largely women... why don't women want to be treated as the equals of men? Or does "equality" mean "we only get the benefits, none of the drawbacks"?


I'm going to guess because your country's such a shiathole, they can't rely on all the existing biased power structure giving them equal treatment, and therfore, need some advantage under the law?
 
2013-04-24 11:02:51 AM

SlothB77: Those receiving alimony can no longer tap into the paychecks of their ex-spouse's new husband or wife

whoa, this was happening?  If I marry someone who got divorced and is paying alimony, my spouse's divorcee could tap into my paychecks for alimony?  That is farking ridiculous.


If you remarry enough times, you can create a human centipede of alimony payments.
 
2013-04-24 11:03:11 AM
"Anti-woman," my arse. "Anti-gold-diggers," is more like it.
 
2013-04-24 11:07:15 AM

Aidan: sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.

Jesus fark. That ain't right.


I know...same thing here.  My ex asked for back child support, settled for 2 grand... we had a personal agreement based on what I made compared to what the state said I should pay.  But in the deal (court entered, thank god), I get to claim my son every other year.
 
2013-04-24 11:08:57 AM

Talondel: sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.

I would wager good money that the reason you got audited is because your ex still claimed the deduction too (even if she told you she wouldn't).  The IRS doesn't care who takes the deduction, so long as only one person takes it.   Two people taking a dependent deduction on the same person will trigger a review.  IRS will pick one of the two, ask that person so prove they are entitled to take the deduction, and if he/she cannot, they're screwed.


Pretty much how it happened. Pretty sure that %$#*&%$ did it to hurt me.

/only 3 more years, only 3 more years, only 3 more years
 
2013-04-24 11:10:53 AM

Kome: I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.


She was supposed to get her own lawyer, not talk to dad's.
 
2013-04-24 11:12:37 AM

farker99: Rather than 1/2 the length of the marriage, how about 1.5 times the marriage?

This means the longer you are married and he/she is out of the work force the longer you have to carry them.

Married 1 day, 1.5 days of payments.
Married 1 year, 1.5 years of payments.
Married 20 years, 30 years of payments.

Means being in a long term relationship is long term. During and after.


Too burdensome - half the length is about right.  There has to be some chance of a recovery, but not a forever crutch.
 
2013-04-24 11:12:50 AM
Going though a messy divorce right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-04-24 11:13:12 AM
Divorce is for those to weak to become a widow/er.
 
2013-04-24 11:15:40 AM

MadHatter500: Kome: I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.

She was supposed to get her own lawyer, not talk to dad's.


Dad probably poisoned the well ahead of time. Apparently if you go and meet with every major divorce lawyer in town, some conflict of interest magic happens and they are forbidden from taking your spouse's case - even if you don't hire them. So if you're an asshole, that's always an option.
 
2013-04-24 11:17:22 AM
So the lesson I'm taking away from this is don't get married.
 
2013-04-24 11:27:56 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


Agreed.  I think the whole process should have more intelligence built in, especially with the strides of women in the workforce over the past 20 years.

It totally makes sense for a housewife of 20 years to not be dumped on the street by her husband, but short marriages do not have that same "assumed" agreement regarding who works and who takes care of the family while forgoing their career.

The biggest thing I see here is that this would need to be phased in to prevent abuse.  Now a woman might get married and quit her job under the assumption that if the worst happened she would be able to collect alimony and therefore did not seek a prenup.  3 years alimony is not nearly enough to make up for ditching your career for 10 years.  In that case your earning power is basically reset back to zero.  Now, if unmarried women there knew that 3 year alimony was the law then more would push for prenups or take more care in ditching their careers.
 
2013-04-24 11:28:33 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


Did you really say "Time Served?"  Its not a prison sentence.

//Yes dear, I'll get right on that dear..
 
2013-04-24 11:29:15 AM

SlothB77: Those receiving alimony can no longer tap into the paychecks of their ex-spouse's new husband or wife

whoa, this was happening?  If I marry someone who got divorced and is paying alimony, my spouse's divorcee could tap into my paychecks for alimony?  That is farking ridiculous.


Actually, I do believe it depends on whether you're in a community property state.  If you are, once you get married, your income is also legally your spouse's income and thus can get factored into alimony & child support calculations.  BUT, that shiat doesn't happen automatically.  The courts don't monitor people's incomes continually after a divorce to see when and how it changes and then jump in with new payment schedules.  You or your ex would have to contact the court and tell them about the change in income and request a change to the existing payment structure(s).

Disclaimer: IANAL; This all comes from going through a divorce and talking to some of the lawyers and employees at the court house.
 
2013-04-24 11:37:56 AM

Coolfusis: I have to say, my state is completely backwards in most regards, but Texas does alimony pretty well.

0-10 years = you get nothing, unless the man abused you (or cheated, IIRC)
10-20 = 5 years of alimony, 20% of the man's income, capped at 5,000 monthly
20-30 = 7 years
30+ = 10 years

If the woman cheats? She (likely) gets nothing. If she fails to try to get a job or something to support herself within a reasonable time frame? The payments stop. If she doesn't marry, but moves in some dude to party on the man's dime? The payments stop. If she gets most of the assets in the divorce/runs up a bunch of credit before the divorce/actually has the means to support herself? Her alimony amount is lessened.


From

FAMILY CODE


TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP


SUBTITLE C. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE


CHAPTER 8. MAINTENANCE

Sec. 8.051.  ELIGIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE; COURT ORDER.
(2)  the spouse seeking maintenance:

(A)  is unable to earn sufficient income to provide for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability;

(B)  has been married to the other spouse for 10 years or longer and lacks the ability to earn sufficient income to provide for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs; or

(C)   is the custodian of a child of the marriage of any age who requires substantial care and personal supervision because of a physical or mental disability that prevents the spouse from earning sufficient income to provide for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs.


This means that there's no 'automatic' alimony in Texas. (B) is the usual part used to get it, but the 'lacks inability' clause disqualifies many people. That whole 'minimum reasonable needs' clause is a killer, too. There's automatic Child Support, which is based on a scale depending on how much the supporting party earns minus insurance.

Generally speaking, the supported spouse has to prove, in court, that they need the support (not deserve the support).

Regardless of this, it's all negotiable anyway. You can put together your own plan that makes sense (or doesn't).

Oh...and cheating only effects distribution of property, and only possibly up to a 60/40 split -- not support (spousal or child).
 
2013-04-24 11:38:51 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: MadHatter500: Kome: I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.

She was supposed to get her own lawyer, not talk to dad's.

Dad probably poisoned the well ahead of time. Apparently if you go and meet with every major divorce lawyer in town, some conflict of interest magic happens and they are forbidden from taking your spouse's case - even if you don't hire them. So if you're an asshole, that's always an option.


My dad played that game to stall for time. He purposefully got the son of my mom's lawyer as his lawyer, which was obviously a conflict of interest, so when they went to court it got pushed back to give him time to find a new lawyer and get him prepared. My mom was furious, because she just wanted it to be over.
 
2013-04-24 11:42:01 AM
Alimony for either sex should be until the receiver gets married. At that point, cut it off. Same like child support.
 
2013-04-24 11:51:30 AM

nocturnal001: The biggest thing I see here is that this would need to be phased in to prevent abuse. Now a woman might get married and quit her job under the assumption that if the worst happened she would be able to collect alimony and therefore did not seek a prenup. 3 years alimony is not nearly enough to make up for ditching your career for 10 years. In that case your earning power is basically reset back to zero. Now, if unmarried women there knew that 3 year alimony was the law then more would push for prenups or take more care in ditching their careers.


Ultimately it's the woman's choice to abandon their career. Nobody forced them into it. If I decide to quit my job and become a self-sufficient beet farmer for the next ten years, the most help I'm going to get transitioning back into the workforce is a student loan or government unemployment programs. I just don't understand why decisions made within marriage somehow negate the responsibility of the lower-earning spouse to take any precautions whatsoever to hedge against a fifty percent probability of divorce.
 
2013-04-24 11:57:44 AM

James F. Campbell: So the lesson I'm taking away from this is don't get married.


Actually, I think the lesson should be that before getting married you should be completely honest and open about the expectations for both parties and what arrangements will be made if the marriage ends.  Unfortunately, too many people see this honesty as some sort of weakness and won't do it.  Yes, marriage is about love, but it is also a legal contract and thus you should enter into it knowing what that contract says.
 
2013-04-24 12:01:32 PM
I think that this is a good idea in principle, but this is Florida Republicans and Rick Scott that we're talking about.  Let's just say that their desire ability to just do an unequivocal good thing for their constituents is questionable at best.  Devil's in the details and all that.  Let's just say that if a clean, non-partisan, non-class warfare, non-poison pill laden bill comes out of this process, I will be thrilled.
 
2013-04-24 12:03:59 PM
I'm going to refrain from posting my, now deleted, diatribe about coonts having to do the math before going off the rails. I think men need to do the math before proposing.

/Yes, that was a toned down improvement over my original.
 
2013-04-24 12:09:12 PM

wildcardjack: I'm going to refrain from posting my, now deleted, diatribe about coonts having to do the math before going off the rails. I think men need to do the math before proposing.

/Yes, that was a toned down improvement over my original.


Both people need to do the math.  If a couple wants to have kids then they need to sit down and figure out how they will do it.  Are both going to work and they'll pay for childcare?  Or is one going to stay home permanently and raise the kids?  And what sort of financial security does the person who stays home an raises the kids get?

If you and the person you are planning on marrying can't have this discussion or can't come to an agreement on it then you should probably not get married.
 
2013-04-24 12:14:36 PM
Pre-Nup
Pre-Nup
Pre-Nup

/paralegal
//works for a Family Law attorney
 
2013-04-24 12:21:26 PM

Pincy: If you and the person you are planning on marrying can't have this discussion or can't come to an agreement on it then you should probably not get married.


This is Florida we're talking about....

laws.justsickshit.com
 
2013-04-24 12:21:41 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-24 12:22:50 PM
I disagree.  You should be horribly and continuously punished for getting married.  It prevents intelligent people from repeating the same mistake with a constant reminder.
 
2013-04-24 12:27:28 PM

Kome: I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.


My parent's divorce went down in a similar fashion... although in a different state.  If you believed everything you read on Fark about divorce, well... you wouldn't have a very comprehensive understanding.  For every horror story about some poor schlub getting fleeced by a gold digger... there are 10 where the former wives (mothers to children) get absolutely rail roaded by some ignorant good-old-boy judge.  The problem in Florida, is that they want to treat all marriages as the gold-digger variety.  So much for personal responsibility right?  Rich white guys are being victimized by scheming seductresses... they need the state to step in to help.
 
2013-04-24 12:33:30 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Dad probably poisoned the well ahead of time. Apparently if you go and meet with every major divorce lawyer in town, some conflict of interest magic happens and they are forbidden from taking your spouse's case - even if you don't hire them. So if you're an asshole, that's always an option.


Some random ambulance chasing lawyer explained this to me once as we were waiting in line at a takeout place (didn't know the guy, he just struck up conversation).  You talk to every nasty lawyer out there and then go hire the one you wanted in the first place.  Now she can't hire any of those people because they've already worked your case and it would violate your attorney-client privilege.  I'm not legally inclined so I have no idea if its true.
 
2013-04-24 12:35:08 PM

Pincy: Actually, I think the lesson should be that before getting married you should be completely honest and open about the expectations for both parties and what arrangements will be made if the marriage ends. Unfortunately, too many people see this honesty as some sort of weakness and won't do it. Yes, marriage is about love, but it is also a legal contract and thus you should enter into it knowing what that contract says.


Yeah dude, getting a pre-nup is just admitting that the marriage going to fail... just like getting car insurance is admitting that you're a bad driver.
 
2013-04-24 12:36:39 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I'm confused... The Republicans are on the correct side of a fight. And they're Florida Republicans, to boot.


Only kinda.  Note that they're wanting to limit alimony payments based as a percentage of  salary not income or general means testing (savings or whatever).

Guess which class has little of their income/wealth coming from salary...
 
2013-04-24 12:39:12 PM

karmaceutical: My parent's divorce went down in a similar fashion... although in a different state. If you believed everything you read on Fark about divorce, well... you wouldn't have a very comprehensive understanding. For every horror story about some poor schlub getting fleeced by a gold digger... there are 10 where the former wives (mothers to children) get absolutely rail roaded by some ignorant good-old-boy judge. The problem in Florida, is that they want to treat all marriages as the gold-digger variety. So much for personal responsibility right? Rich white guys are being victimized by scheming seductresses... they need the state to step in to help.


I actually agree with this 100%.  It seems like people want to claim the family courts favor women, but they really seem to want to favor the litigious.  if you're the type who wants to get over it and move on with your life, you're going to get absolutely screwed in court-- so lot of nice decent guys get screwed in court at the hands of sociopathic women.  At the same time, a lot of nice decent women get screwed the same way.  And both genders end up feeling like they didn't get a fair shot in court.

There's something seriously wrong when the system favors the people who most want to abuse it.
 
2013-04-24 12:46:18 PM
I know a few women who are divorced and get child support. Every one of them blow it on vacations that my husband and I could only dream about.

Only one I give a pass too. Her ex was an abusive dickbag and she does take her kids with her on the trips.
 
2013-04-24 12:56:25 PM
Not farking soon enough. They tried to do this in Virginia, state that a child's best interest was to spend as much time with both parents as possible, and aim for equal time as a starting point and work backwards based on the needs of the kid. Instead, they still let their farking child custody judges apply the Tender Years doctrine. As a result, since I don't have a vagina, I went from having equal time with my little girl to every other weekend and only TWO weeks in the summer. Ignoring her mother TOOK OFF after my daughter was born for six months and left us both alone, and I raised her. The judge even acknowledged that, and said "Little girls need their mothers, or they become delinquents." Of course, it was my own stupid fault for thinking a lawyer was too much money to afford. But fark feminists, fark the child custody system.
 
2013-04-24 01:00:01 PM
Marriage is a suckers bet, for men.
 
2013-04-24 01:03:55 PM

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: Talk to us when you are divorced parent now, not a kid 20 years ago.


Dude, relax. Both Talondel and cartersdad implied that changing who takes the tax credit is still doable down here (although I'm not gonna assume for all 50 states).
 
2013-04-24 01:08:21 PM
Good.    One year of marriage should not get you sixty years of freeloading.
 
2013-04-24 01:25:56 PM

Aidan: sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.

How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.

From what I've heard down here if you tried something like that, you'd be shot, set on fire, and torn into bitty pieces.


Because the IRS rule was changed in 2007 to grant the deduction to the custodial parent automatically unless he or she signs a form to give it up.
 
2013-04-24 01:35:03 PM

Oniamien: FTFA

"The average guy with an alimony payment couldn't retire," said Hitner, who is divorced. "And I was getting calls from (soon-to-be) second wives ready to cancel their weddings" out of concern that an ex-wife could cut into their paychecks.

I had been under the impression that if joint filing pushed you into a higher tax bracket you might actually pay  less alimony.  Does anyone know how someone could take alimony from an ex-spouse's new spouse?


While not taking money directly from the new spouse's paycheck, they have raised alimony payments on the guy. My friend had it happen to him, and he's making less than when the divorce happened.

She's (his ex) shacked up with a guy, and they aren't planning on marrying. Why would she? She gets $3k a month from him.
 
2013-04-24 01:36:15 PM

Aidan: one of Ripley's Bad Guys: Talk to us when you are divorced parent now, not a kid 20 years ago.

Dude, relax. Both Talondel and cartersdad implied that changing who takes the tax credit is still doable down here (although I'm not gonna assume for all 50 states).


*bzzzzt*  wrong.

The IRS looks to see who has the kid 6+ months out of the year.  They decide who gets the tax credit, not the court or the state.  Side agreements between parents are of course done.

/ex never made enough to pay taxes, but never gave me the child credit out of spite
/current GF is accountant
 
2013-04-24 01:36:54 PM

cartersdad: Aidan: sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.

Jesus fark. That ain't right.

I know...same thing here.  My ex asked for back child support, settled for 2 grand... we had a personal agreement based on what I made compared to what the state said I should pay.  But in the deal (court entered, thank god), I get to claim my son every other year.


"Imputed" income sucks, especially in a bad economy.
 
2013-04-24 01:38:49 PM

FirstNationalBastard: The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.

If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.


The state does not have a vested interest in finding the correct father, they have a vested interest in someone footing the bill.  That's why mandatory paternity testing isn't on the books.
 
2013-04-24 01:49:04 PM

bofkentucky: FirstNationalBastard: The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.

If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.

The state does not have a vested interest in finding the correct father, they have a vested interest in someone footing the bill.  That's why mandatory paternity testing isn't on the books.


Texas has reformed a lot of their laws. Paternity testing is now mandatory before a court can order child support. No more of that, "Well, she wrote your name on the birth certificate. Pay up." bullshiat that used to happen with alarming frequency.
 
2013-04-24 01:56:46 PM
While Alimony and Family Court reform has been needed for DECADES now, knowing the GOP, especially the Florida GOP, some ass is going to spout off trough his fat jowls that no women deserve Alimony ever and that marriage is a contract by choice and personal responsibility yada yada yada. Which will pretty much piss off anybody with a Vagina and a functioning brain and once again show that the GOP are as misogynistic as they are misanthropic and sociopathic.

Trust me, it's only a matter of time before this happens.
 
2013-04-24 02:07:53 PM
My wife quit her job to become a stay-at-home mom. I work 8-9 hours a day for my employer, and she works 8-9 hours a day taking care of the kid and the house. In the evening, we split time more or less evenly.

Because my wife quit her job, she's losing out on years of professional development. If we were to get divorced, she would be at a disadvantage in re-entering the workforce. I was able to advance my career while she agreed with me to quit her job to take care of the kid. In the case of our getting divorced, I feel I should be at least partially responsible for supporting her until she could get back into the workforce. Half the length of the marriage (as talked about in the article) seems like a reasonable metric to me.

I do think that if my wife hadn't quit her job while we were married, she shouldn't be entitled to any alimony, since she hadn't sacrificed her career development. I also completely agree that divorced spouses shouldn't be able to tap into their ex-spouses new spouse's income.
 
2013-04-24 02:21:19 PM
In Minnesota, feminist groups lobbied and killed a bill that would have set a minimum parenting time of 45.1% for each parent unless there was a good reason not to. Drugs, abuse, etc. Child support kicks in at 45% and under.

It seems to me that aside from big issues like that, it's so hard to find the truth in family court that kids might be better served if we didn't bother trying. Families would get on with their lives more quickly and with more money and less anger.
 
2013-04-24 02:42:52 PM

farker99: Rather than 1/2 the length of the marriage, how about 1.5 times the marriage?

This means the longer you are married and he/she is out of the work force the longer you have to carry them.

Married 1 day, 1.5 days of payments.
Married 1 year, 1.5 years of payments.
Married 20 years, 30 years of payments.

Means being in a long term relationship is long term. During and after.


I'd make one change to that.  Married less than a year, zero payments.   Other than that, your numbers are reasonable.  Which is why the radical feminists would hate it.
 
2013-04-24 02:46:06 PM
What if you never had a carrer and are just a lazy coont?
 
2013-04-24 02:47:18 PM

Coolfusis: 0-10 years = you get nothing, unless the man abused you (or cheated, IIRC)


That would GUARANTEE a huge increase in claims of abuse.  Or is there going to be some kind of requirement that abuse is proven?
 
2013-04-24 02:54:17 PM

inglixthemad: Oniamien: FTFA

"The average guy with an alimony payment couldn't retire," said Hitner, who is divorced. "And I was getting calls from (soon-to-be) second wives ready to cancel their weddings" out of concern that an ex-wife could cut into their paychecks.

I had been under the impression that if joint filing pushed you into a higher tax bracket you might actually pay  less alimony.  Does anyone know how someone could take alimony from an ex-spouse's new spouse?

While not taking money directly from the new spouse's paycheck, they have raised alimony payments on the guy. My friend had it happen to him, and he's making less than when the divorce happened.

She's (his ex) shacked up with a guy, and they aren't planning on marrying. Why would she? She gets $3k a month from him.


Here in California, if the woman moves in with a guy she can lose her alimony.
 
2013-04-24 02:55:35 PM

ragekage: Not farking soon enough. They tried to do this in Virginia, state that a child's best interest was to spend as much time with both parents as possible, and aim for equal time as a starting point and work backwards based on the needs of the kid. Instead, they still let their farking child custody judges apply the Tender Years doctrine. As a result, since I don't have a vagina, I went from having equal time with my little girl to every other weekend and only TWO weeks in the summer. Ignoring her mother TOOK OFF after my daughter was born for six months and left us both alone, and I raised her. The judge even acknowledged that, and said "Little girls need their mothers, or they become delinquents." Of course, it was my own stupid fault for thinking a lawyer was too much money to afford. But fark feminists, fark the child custody system.


This is one of the arguments I hear from MRAs* that absolutely baffles me.  You do realize that the bias toward women in many family courts in the US has absolutely nothing to do with feminists or feminism, right?  It's a throwback to the idea that a woman's place is in the home raising the kids because women are "better" at that sort of thing than men and it's the exact opposite of feminism.

*I don't know if you're an MRA and I'm not saying you are, but they do so love to use the argument that family courts are biased against men because of feminism.
 
2013-04-24 03:01:37 PM

ragekage: But fark feminists, fark the child custody system


What do feminists have to do with that?  It sounds like the judge was the asshole.
Our courts are institutions that were created by men.  Quit blaming feminists for institution that they did not create and do not control.
 
2013-04-24 03:01:40 PM
Say, how will gay marriage effect alimony?
 
2013-04-24 03:03:55 PM

OgreMagi: Which is why the radical feminists would hate it.


Radical feminist wouldn't even get married.  Quit projecting some straw-bogeyman onto what you imagine feminists ( radical or otherwise) to be.
 
2013-04-24 03:13:14 PM

Lackofname: Say, how will gay marriage effect alimony?


If two gay people get divorced they will both have to pay alimony to a divorced straight couple for destroying the sanctity of marriage not once, but twice (for getting homo-married and then reneging on the word of their vows), which ultimately is what led to those straight people divorcing anyways.

Am I doing this right?
 
2013-04-24 03:17:16 PM

Coolfusis: I have to say, my state is completely backwards in most regards, but Texas does alimony pretty well.

0-10 years = you get nothing, unless the man abused you (or cheated, IIRC)
10-20 = 5 years of alimony, 20% of the man's income, capped at 5,000 monthly
20-30 = 7 years
30+ = 10 years

If the woman cheats? She (likely) gets nothing. If she fails to try to get a job or something to support herself within a reasonable time frame? The payments stop. If she doesn't marry, but moves in some dude to party on the man's dime? The payments stop. If she gets most of the assets in the divorce/runs up a bunch of credit before the divorce/actually has the means to support herself? Her alimony amount is lessened.



Hey, at least Texas got something right.
 
2013-04-24 03:17:20 PM

OgreMagi: inglixthemad: Oniamien: FTFA

"The average guy with an alimony payment couldn't retire," said Hitner, who is divorced. "And I was getting calls from (soon-to-be) second wives ready to cancel their weddings" out of concern that an ex-wife could cut into their paychecks.

I had been under the impression that if joint filing pushed you into a higher tax bracket you might actually pay  less alimony.  Does anyone know how someone could take alimony from an ex-spouse's new spouse?

While not taking money directly from the new spouse's paycheck, they have raised alimony payments on the guy. My friend had it happen to him, and he's making less than when the divorce happened.

She's (his ex) shacked up with a guy, and they aren't planning on marrying. Why would she? She gets $3k a month from him.

Here in California, if the woman moves in with a guy she can lose her alimony.


You have to "prove" she did. She has a rathole flat as a mailing address, good luck. Doubly true if you can't afford a PI to "prove" it. Then the court has to rule it is true.

Look up: Danbury Slaughterhouse.

Some guys don't even try because the lawyers tell them if they fail, they're out the legal fees (possibly paying her fees too!) and might have it raised to boot.
 
2013-04-24 03:29:32 PM
Alimony reform is needed, but I instantly don't trust this bill simply because it was introduced by the Florida GOP and is supported by Rick Scott (kind of sad that such an affiliation creates a presumption against the legislation).

That being said, I'd love to see more concrete objections.
 
2013-04-24 03:59:13 PM

OgreMagi: Coolfusis: 0-10 years = you get nothing, unless the man abused you (or cheated, IIRC)

That would GUARANTEE a huge increase in claims of abuse.  Or is there going to be some kind of requirement that abuse is proven?


That's how it currently is in Texas, and yes, it absolutely has to be proven. The person alleging the abuse has to have called the police, the abuser been arrested, and the abused pressed charges. Also, yes, as someone mentioned - this is all if they even prove they actually need the alimony. Getting alimony in Texas is like trying to shoot a dime off a fencepost at 1,000 yards. Sure, under the right circumstances, with the right shooter, and with some luck, it can be done. Most people, though? Ha.
 
2013-04-24 04:02:20 PM

ragekage: Not farking soon enough. They tried to do this in Virginia, state that a child's best interest was to spend as much time with both parents as possible, and aim for equal time as a starting point and work backwards based on the needs of the kid. Instead, they still let their farking child custody judges apply the Tender Years doctrine. As a result, since I don't have a vagina, I went from having equal time with my little girl to every other weekend and only TWO weeks in the summer. Ignoring her mother TOOK OFF after my daughter was born for six months and left us both alone, and I raised her. The judge even acknowledged that, and said "Little girls need their mothers, or they become delinquents." Of course, it was my own stupid fault for thinking a lawyer was too much money to afford. But fark feminists, fark the child custody system.


I have no idea when your case took place, but the Tender Years doctrine hasn't been valid law in Virginia for thirty years.
 
2013-04-24 04:09:54 PM
Why are Republicans against traditional divorce and marriage?  Marriage is a commitment for life under God, even if you get divorced.  Why are they defying God's will?
 
2013-04-24 04:12:47 PM

Willas Tyrell: ragekage: Not farking soon enough. They tried to do this in Virginia, state that a child's best interest was to spend as much time with both parents as possible, and aim for equal time as a starting point and work backwards based on the needs of the kid. Instead, they still let their farking child custody judges apply the Tender Years doctrine. As a result, since I don't have a vagina, I went from having equal time with my little girl to every other weekend and only TWO weeks in the summer. Ignoring her mother TOOK OFF after my daughter was born for six months and left us both alone, and I raised her. The judge even acknowledged that, and said "Little girls need their mothers, or they become delinquents." Of course, it was my own stupid fault for thinking a lawyer was too much money to afford. But fark feminists, fark the child custody system.

I have no idea when your case took place, but the Tender Years doctrine hasn't been valid law in Virginia for thirty years.


You know this is Fark right?  You didn't expect anyone with an axe to grind give a fair assessment of their experience did you?
 
2013-04-24 04:16:04 PM

Willas Tyrell: ragekage: Not farking soon enough. They tried to do this in Virginia, state that a child's best interest was to spend as much time with both parents as possible, and aim for equal time as a starting point and work backwards based on the needs of the kid. Instead, they still let their farking child custody judges apply the Tender Years doctrine. As a result, since I don't have a vagina, I went from having equal time with my little girl to every other weekend and only TWO weeks in the summer. Ignoring her mother TOOK OFF after my daughter was born for six months and left us both alone, and I raised her. The judge even acknowledged that, and said "Little girls need their mothers, or they become delinquents." Of course, it was my own stupid fault for thinking a lawyer was too much money to afford. But fark feminists, fark the child custody system.

I have no idea when your case took place, but the Tender Years doctrine hasn't been valid law in Virginia for thirty years.


It may not be law, but it is widespread practice.

Being a journalist, I've even worked on stories where divorced moms have neglected, abused or murdered their children. Sometimes we get to talk to the dad, and he seems to have it together, so why did she have custody? Because vagina, that's why.

Unrelated: If both parents are law-abiding citizens with jobs and willing to take the kid(s) for half of the time or more, child support should be forfeited regardless of the actual parenting arrangement that is reached.
 
2013-04-24 04:35:50 PM

LiberalWeenie: Unrelated: If both parents are law-abiding citizens with jobs income above a certain level and willing to take the kid(s) for half of the time or more, child support should be forfeited regardless of the actual parenting arrangement that is reached.


If Parent A is living off of investment income and Parent B is working full time at minimum wage, Parent A should probably kick in a bit of money for when the kid is with Parent B.  I only mention that scenario since I've seen it happen.  Worked with a guy who lucked out on the stock market, made a few million and retired at 35...then told the courts that he shouldn't have to pay child support because he was unemployed.
 
2013-04-24 04:53:04 PM

Teufelaffe: LiberalWeenie: Unrelated: If both parents are law-abiding citizens with jobs income above a certain level and willing to take the kid(s) for half of the time or more, child support should be forfeited regardless of the actual parenting arrangement that is reached.

If Parent A is living off of investment income and Parent B is working full time at minimum wage, Parent A should probably kick in a bit of money for when the kid is with Parent B.  I only mention that scenario since I've seen it happen.  Worked with a guy who lucked out on the stock market, made a few million and retired at 35...then told the courts that he shouldn't have to pay child support because he was unemployed.


Yeah, I make six figures and the ex makes about 9 bucks an hour. We split custody and I have to pay her child support. In theory I am cool with it. In reality it annoys me that her other kids from other dad see as much benefit as mine from it but I try and just roll with it.
 
2013-04-24 05:13:38 PM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


I agree. I was actually under the impression that women who have only been married a short time do not get alimony. Even in community property states, the laws for dividing up property are different for a shorter marriage than a longer marriage unless there is a pre-nup. Perhaps this is different for Florida? Now, if the issue is child support, the rules should be different, and they should not be based on sex. If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.
 
2013-04-24 05:24:10 PM

DeaH: If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.


That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Who has to pay child support and how much shouldn't have anything to do with the gender of either parent.  It should be based solely on the income levels of the parents and a reasonable standard of living for the children.
 
2013-04-24 05:24:43 PM

DeaH: doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.

I agree. I was actually under the impression that women who have only been married a short time do not get alimony. Even in community property states, the laws for dividing up property are different for a shorter marriage than a longer marriage unless there is a pre-nup. Perhaps this is different for Florida? Now, if the issue is child support, the rules should be different, and they should not be based on sex. If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.


No, not different... the PAC running this campaign makes it sound as though judges in Florida are required to award life-long alimony in any divorce; which is not true.  This is another instance where a relatively small but vocal (read: wealthy) minority is buying their way in the legislature.
 
2013-04-24 05:33:43 PM

DeaH: doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.

I agree. I was actually under the impression that women who have only been married a short time do not get alimony.



You are correct. Alimony is only awarded if a spouse spent the last several years of the marriage not working.

It's a matter of state law, though, so who knows what they've cooked up in Florida.
 
2013-04-24 05:44:48 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I'm confused... The Republicans are on the correct side of a fight. And they're Florida Republicans, to boot.

[today.ucla.edu image 239x256]

/I also see that the people complaining about this are largely women... why don't women want to be treated as the equals of men? Or does "equality" mean "we only get the benefits, none of the drawbacks"?


Ah, I see you've met several feminists, recently. Furthermore, you have cut to the heart of their doctrines.
 
2013-04-24 05:53:56 PM

Teufelaffe: DeaH: If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Who has to pay child support and how much shouldn't have anything to do with the gender of either parent.  It should be based solely on the income levels of the parents and a reasonable standard of living for the children.


You're half-right. It should be based on the income levels of the parents and the amount of time the children spend with each parent--a "non-custodial" parent who still has the children half the time needs more money in pocket to care for said children, after all. Demanding any "reasonable standard of living" for the children is not a good idea. What if the parents COULD NOT AFFORD a "reasonable standard of living" before the divorce? Who decides on a "reasonable standard of living"? Why should divorced parents be denied equal protection before the law? That is, if they're divorced, they have to adhere to a court's decision for a "reasonable standard of living", but if they live together, they don't. It should be based on income.

Likewise, under a sane system, if a parent who is not "custodial" still has time with the children, and if the "custodial" parent makes a boatload of money more than does the "noncustodial" parent, the "custodial" parent should pay child support. Indiana does this. A case went up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Even though the mother was "custodial", the father had as much time (as in "overnights") with the children as did the mother. They lived close enough to each other that the kids could alternate homes and still attend the same school, etc. The mother made a great deal more than did the father. Unfortunately, due to the wording of the law at the time, the mother could not be assessed child support because the father was not "custodial". She even went so far as to demand the court continue to assess child support from the father. The state Supreme Court ruled that, as the law was then worded, they could not order the mother to pay child support, even though it would have been, in their opinion, in the best interests of the children and according to the spirit of child support in Indiana. However, they did rule that, even though the law as written did require the "non-custodial" parent to pay child support, the law did not specify a minimum amount, so the father was assessed an obligation of $0, weekly. The law did get changed so that this situation would no longer arise. A "custodial" parent in Indiana no longer has privileged status when it comes to child support. It's based on relative income and time with the children.
 
2013-04-24 06:11:00 PM

Silly_Sot: Teufelaffe: DeaH: If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Who has to pay child support and how much shouldn't have anything to do with the gender of either parent.  It should be based solely on the income levels of the parents and a reasonable standard of living for the children.

You're half-right. It should be based on the income levels of the parents and the amount of time the children spend with each parent--a "non-custodial" parent who still has the children half the time needs more money in pocket to care for said children, after all. Demanding any "reasonable standard of living" for the children is not a good idea. What if the parents COULD NOT AFFORD a "reasonable standard of living" before the divorce? Who decides on a "reasonable standard of living"? Why should divorced parents be denied equal protection before the law? That is, if they're divorced, they have to adhere to a court's decision for a "reasonable standard of living", but if they live together, they don't. It should be based on income.

Likewise, under a sane system, if a parent who is not "custodial" still has time with the children, and if the "custodial" parent makes a boatload of money more than does the "noncustodial" parent, the "custodial" parent should pay child support. Indiana does this. A case went up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Even though the mother was "custodial", the father had as much time (as in "overnights") with the children as did the mother. They lived close enough to each other that the kids could alternate homes and still attend the same school, etc. The mother made a great deal more than did the father. Unfortunately, due to the wording of the law at the time, the mother could not be assessed child support because the father was not "custodial". She even went so ...


How is one parent "non-custodial" if the parenting time is split 50/50? Must be a legal thing that varies from state to state because I am not a lawyer but I know a bit about custody law in Colorado and I have never heard of such a thing.
 
2013-04-24 06:12:30 PM

Silly_Sot: Teufelaffe: DeaH: If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Who has to pay child support and how much shouldn't have anything to do with the gender of either parent.  It should be based solely on the income levels of the parents and a reasonable standard of living for the children.

You're half-right. It should be based on the income levels of the parents and the amount of time the children spend with each parent--a "non-custodial" parent who still has the children half the time needs more money in pocket to care for said children, after all. Demanding any "reasonable standard of living" for the children is not a good idea. What if the parents COULD NOT AFFORD a "reasonable standard of living" before the divorce? Who decides on a "reasonable standard of living"? Why should divorced parents be denied equal protection before the law? That is, if they're divorced, they have to adhere to a court's decision for a "reasonable standard of living", but if they live together, they don't. It should be based on income.

Likewise, under a sane system, if a parent who is not "custodial" still has time with the children, and if the "custodial" parent makes a boatload of money more than does the "noncustodial" parent, the "custodial" parent should pay child support. Indiana does this. A case went up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Even though the mother was "custodial", the father had as much time (as in "overnights") with the children as did the mother. They lived close enough to each other that the kids could alternate homes and still attend the same school, etc. The mother made a great deal more than did the father. Unfortunately, due to the wording of the law at the time, the mother could not be assessed child support because the father was not "custodial". She even went so ...


My whole thought behind the "reasonable standard of living" is that a child's basic needs should be met, but it doesn't need to be the same as it was prior to the divorce.  In essence it's to avoid the idiotic "in keeping with the manner to which they are accustomed" crap that can happen.  If little Timmy was used to eating caviar for lunch every day from solid gold plates, that doesn't mean that the court should try and find a child support level that allows that to continue after the divorce.  On the other hand, it's obvious that the childrens' basic needs must be met.  It's not an easy balance to find, but I've just seen a number of folks who get shafted in a divorce because the court seemed to think that because the ex or the kids were used to a lavish lifestyle during the marriage, that they somehow deserve to keep that lavish lifestyle after the divorce.
 
2013-04-24 06:53:30 PM

Aidan: sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.

Jesus fark. That ain't right.


No, it isn't.  You're supposed to make provision for dependent deduction rotations in your divorce decree.  The IRS doesn't have time to figure out your sloppy verbal agreements.
 
2013-04-24 06:54:33 PM

FirstNationalBastard: The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.

If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.


All you gotta do is ask, man.
 
2013-04-24 06:55:56 PM

farker99: Rather than 1/2 the length of the marriage, how about 1.5 times the marriage?

This means the longer you are married and he/she is out of the work force the longer you have to carry them.

Married 1 day, 1.5 days of payments.
Married 1 year, 1.5 years of payments.
Married 20 years, 30 years of payments.

Means being in a long term relationship is long term. During and after.


You make it sound like being in a BAD long term relationship is a good thing.
 
2013-04-24 06:57:15 PM

jst3p: Marriage is a suckers bet, for men.


Jesus' disciples then said to him, "If this is the case, it is better not to marry!"  - Matt. 19:10
 
2013-04-24 08:00:45 PM

Lackofname: Say, how will gay marriage effect alimony?


Same sex marriage gets a bit tricky...

When two lesbians get divorced, there is no man to fark over WRT child support, alimony, and outstanding debt. It also wouldn't be fair to force one of the women to give up a car or a place to live. Therefore, when two gays get a divorce, one gets saddled with all the marriage debt, loses the house and car, and gets tossed into the street. The OTHER gay gives up the car and house to one of the lesbian divorcees and takes on the duty of alimony, child support, and debt repayment. This is all still a work-in-progress which is why same sex marriage is taking longer to get approved than it should. Lots of stuff like this going on in the background that has to get hashed out.
 
2013-04-24 08:20:31 PM

Apik0r0s: FirstNationalBastard: doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.

Something like this...?

FTFA

Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary.

 But yeah, I agree that if someone gave up their life to be a homemaker, raise the kids, whatever, and then get traded in for the newer model, they should get fair compensation to try to rebuild their life.

That cuts both ways.


And that, friend, is called equality.
 
2013-04-24 09:02:55 PM

LiberalWeenie: Willas Tyrell: ragekage: Not farking soon enough. They tried to do this in Virginia, state that a child's best interest was to spend as much time with both parents as possible, and aim for equal time as a starting point and work backwards based on the needs of the kid. Instead, they still let their farking child custody judges apply the Tender Years doctrine. As a result, since I don't have a vagina, I went from having equal time with my little girl to every other weekend and only TWO weeks in the summer. Ignoring her mother TOOK OFF after my daughter was born for six months and left us both alone, and I raised her. The judge even acknowledged that, and said "Little girls need their mothers, or they become delinquents." Of course, it was my own stupid fault for thinking a lawyer was too much money to afford. But fark feminists, fark the child custody system.

I have no idea when your case took place, but the Tender Years doctrine hasn't been valid law in Virginia for thirty years.

It may not be law, but it is widespread practice.

Being a journalist, I've even worked on stories where divorced moms have neglected, abused or murdered their children. Sometimes we get to talk to the dad, and he seems to have it together, so why did she have custody? Because vagina, that's why.

Unrelated: If both parents are law-abiding citizens with jobs and willing to take the kid(s) for half of the time or more, child support should be forfeited regardless of the actual parenting arrangement that is reached.


Exactly this, and especially since I didn't have a lawyer, the judge and the GAL rode roughshod all over me and did whatever the fark they wanted to. The judge on appeal, as well as my lawyer, were both appalled.
 
2013-04-24 09:21:31 PM

Teufelaffe: DeaH: If a man has the kids, he should get child support, regardless of the disparity of his and his wife's income. The child's standard of living should not change just because the parents cannot make a go of it.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Who has to pay child support and how much shouldn't have anything to do with the gender of either parent.  It should be based solely on the income levels of the parents and a reasonable standard of living for the children.


Actually, what I said - right before the section you snipped - is that it shouldn't have anything to do with gender. The example I used of the man having custody was merely to illustrate that the non-custodial parent needs to pay child support even when that parent is a woman. Where it seems that you and I have a disagreement has to do with income. I don't care if the custodial parent is loaded and the non-custodial parent is not. The non-custodial parent needs to contribute to the child's financial well-being.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:47 PM
Alimony should last no longer than 1/2 of the married time, and cap out at 10 years of alimony.  It also should be capped based on a percentage of the income of the individual paying alimony, and should not take into account the income of their new spouse.

Half of the assets plus 10 years to get your life in order is long enough.  Your ex doesn't owe you a permanent meal ticket.

It was originally created because women don't typically work, so if they got divorced they needed income or they starved.  Those days are long over, and people can forge their own way in life without leeching from someone else.
 
2013-04-24 10:26:57 PM
Alimony really shouldn't exist unless the woman is physically disabled and unable to find employment

There is nothing stopping a divorced woman from searching though the help wanted adds.

/There is no constitutional guarantee to a "quality of life"  If there is a divorce you may just have to adjust your lifestyle to deal with it.
 
2013-04-24 10:29:05 PM

bofkentucky: FirstNationalBastard: The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.

If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.

The state does not have a vested interest in finding the correct father, they have a vested interest in someone footing the bill.  That's why mandatory paternity testing isn't on the books.


I would argue that forcing a man to support a child he didn't father is an Unconstitutional government confiscation of property.
 
2013-04-24 10:41:37 PM

Kome: I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.


People normally have to struggle to have enough money to raise kids. Your mother wasn't entitled to a guaranteed income for life...
 
2013-04-24 11:39:49 PM

Tr0mBoNe: What if you never had a carrer and are just a lazy coont?


What if you're a man stupid enough to marry someone like that?
 
2013-04-24 11:48:27 PM
I was raised by my single dad. He had to mortgage the house a second time to get her to agree to sign away custody -her suggestion. My brother and I won big time in that deal. So no, I do not believe it should always be to the mother.

When both my relationships broke down we worked out what was fair for kids, and then informed court what we had arranged.  I have NEVER had a cent alimony (just child support) from anyone but came out of each relationship worse off. Except my dignity. Any money for the kids goes to the kids - little things like education, medication, glasses, clothing - like it begins to cover that. Yeah, right. No 1 tried so hard to always be part of kids lives - including my second batch of kids. No 2, well, lets just say he is now paying (and that is pretty irregular) for multiple kids by multiple partners. A real set of shocks came out of that... But I give him chances, he just drifts in and out.

Got back together with No 1, and worked out what had gone wrong, and we fixed it. Years of happiness together later, he got bonus kids out of our break, and we both got wisdom. It all works.

So, tl;dr? Parenting should be shared but custody to most likely to be stable parent if one is not stable, no matter the agenda. Alimony should not be automatic, and yes it should be duration based. Marriage and divorce should NEVER be get out of work free cards.
 
2013-04-25 07:09:43 AM
So divorced isn't really divorced. If it were, all ties, financial, and otherwise, would be terminated. Not really fair.
 
2013-04-25 08:37:59 AM

Pick: So divorced with kids isn't really divorced. If it were, all ties, financial, and otherwise, would be terminated. Not really fair.


FTFY

If there are no kids involved, a true separation is possible.  Once you have kids though, you're responsible for them even if your marriage falls apart.  Strange how that works.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:32 AM
Here's my argument:

I know a guy, high powered, high earning trader.  He probably makes $10 million a year.  Stay at home Mom wife decides she's sick of him being at work 70-80 hours a week and asks for a divorce.

I'm all for her getting a decent portion of the assets (no more than 50%) but after the divorce, she no longer is  paying the "costs" of that kind of salary, namely an absentee partner.  Why should she still get any benefit?  If she wants any ongoing payment after the divorce, let it be limited to the amount a good nanny would cost.  The kids are probably getting child support that is higher than most of us make in a year.  If she wants more, she can get a job (or a new sucker husband) that can give her the lifestyle she used to have.
 
2013-04-25 12:14:20 PM

balki1867: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Dad probably poisoned the well ahead of time. Apparently if you go and meet with every major divorce lawyer in town, some conflict of interest magic happens and they are forbidden from taking your spouse's case - even if you don't hire them. So if you're an asshole, that's always an option.

Some random ambulance chasing lawyer explained this to me once as we were waiting in line at a takeout place (didn't know the guy, he just struck up conversation).  You talk to every nasty lawyer out there and then go hire the one you wanted in the first place.  Now she can't hire any of those people because they've already worked your case and it would violate your attorney-client privilege.  I'm not legally inclined so I have no idea if its true.


I learned it from the Sopranos

/learned all my legal knowledge from the Sopranos
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report