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  
•       •       •

2672 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2013 at 10:12 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report