Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
D-I-V-O-R-C-E
I think family law might have better material for a flamewar.
Do men really want visitation with their kids? Or do they really just want to exert control and get some "value" for the child support they pay? What about child support? Is it too much? Too little? Should it count if the man pays for groceries or should only the money he pays through the child support division of the local prosecutor's office count? How about maintenance?
What about domestic violence orders? Are you happy with giving up your guns because of a civil order issued based on "preponderance of the evidence" proof (the lowest standard of proof there is)?
Do you think the whole branch of law is set up to be unjust to men?
Do men really want visitation with their kids? Or do they really just want to exert control and get some "value" for the child support they pay? What about child support? Is it too much? Too little? Should it count if the man pays for groceries or should only the money he pays through the child support division of the local prosecutor's office count? How about maintenance?
What about domestic violence orders? Are you happy with giving up your guns because of a civil order issued based on "preponderance of the evidence" proof (the lowest standard of proof there is)?
Do you think the whole branch of law is set up to be unjust to men?
Comments
The problem then comes when high class people are in the same situation, or when the situation is out of the ordinary. It seems like the set of laws we have for dealing with family problems often employ the same solutions to a wide variety of situations. In the cases where somebody cheats on their spouse and runs away, child support gets paid. However, child support also gets paid in the cases where someone marries someone for money, and then leaves with the kids. I think that family law just isn't flexible enough to correctly handle all the varied and complex situations that come about. It really is one area where I think judges, or somebody, needs a lot more discretion in determining a fitting resolution to the problem at hand. In a system designed to deal with the least common denominator, the outliers get screwed. Every family is different, and every situation is different. We need a system that can resolve disputes in the most fair and just way possible. Applying the same solutions to everybody doesn't seem to work so well. If you look at the wanted posters at any local police station, most of them are for guys who stopped paying child support.
I think what we need is a cross between a Solomon and Jonathan Swift methods of Family Law.
Visitation schedules can be agreed or fought. The court is not concerned with who "loves" the child more. Instead, the court decides custody and visitation based on the best interests test. This often means that the parties have to get costly custody evaluations from psych professionals.
As far as calculating child support, the legislature promulgates child support guidelines based on the combined income of the parties. A base support obligation is fixed by the guidelines. The parties then do calculations using their incomes, deductions for day care, insurance, and so forth to arrive at individual percentages of support to pay. The problem this causes most people is that there are no deductions for consumer debts. So, if your Visa and rent leave you with $500.00 at the end of the month and your support obligation is $600.00, you're gonna have to make some decisions. Parties can deviate from the guidelines by agreement, but judges can refuse to use the agreement if they think one of the parties is getting a bad deal.
If a party believes the other party has increased their income, they can ask for support to be recalculated. Of course, it works the other way as well, but the party receiving support can go to the county attorney (the prosecutor who deals with misdemeanors) to ask for the increase. The county attorney is, of course, paid by the state and has the resources of the state to brig to bear against the other party. Sound fair? I often wondered about the guys who were wanting more visitation, especially when they would hand the kid off to it's grandmother or the guy's new girlfriend and then go hunting. Some guys seemed sincere, but some seemed like they just wanted to be able to continue to exercise control over their ex by making her appear at a certain place and time for the exchange. Many guys would say to me that they "paid" for their visitation rights by paying child support. They looked at me like confused coon dogs when I told them that the two concepts are not related.
It looks like you can get a no fault-divorce in any state. So what if you want to get a divorce for cruelty, adultery, abandonment or whatever? What if both people are at fault and you have fight it out under comparative rectitude. It gets messy quickly. How do you keep these situations fair?
I honestly don't know. Please understand that my experiences with Family Law are almost exclusively from the families perspective . . . I'm sure the legal side is quite a bot more sterile than the family side.
One of my dad's biggest regrets is that he did not fight for full custody of all of us boys (two brothers). He gladly paid the child support as long as it went to keeping us clothed and fed. He also never talked about the divorce with us kids. Unlike my mother who used every opportunity to disparage my father in front of us.
I also have a friend who is on his third marriage and every divorce resulted in him getting paid alimony!
I feel that all things should be split 50/50 in a divorce. None of this "She got the gold mine, I got the shaft" shit. It should not be as extreme as "Samurai Divorce Court" but you get the idea.
In fact, the best way I have ever seen for dividing things in half is to have one person make two lists/piles and let the other pick which one they want first. It's amazing how nicely a person will split things in half if they know the other party gets to pick which "half" they want.
If you need a pre-nup, you obviously don't 100% trust this person. Why are you marrying someone you don't 100% trust? ^_~
I really can't see how you would split the assets without just doing 50/50. The current system is just the easiest and it's, well, discrete (in the mathematical sense). Both parties are forewarned that the split will be 50/50 before the marriage even happens. If you try to split it any other way it'll turn into a mess. What about housewives? How much is their time worth? How do you draw a line between someone doing useful housework (and other work, usefully supporting their SO) and someone who just "lounges around all day"? Assuming that both sides get nasty in the divorce proceedings, all you really have to go on is...character references and eyewitnesses. Not so great. And what about all the opportunities to advance a career that were lost for the sake of the family? And the ten million other really contentious issues that aren't easily quantifiable? I haven't even mentioned kids yet. The fact is, 50/50 is the best of very few options because it is practical. Society does not have the time and effort to waste on "fairer" divorces.