Why would you want to marry?

[fenix]

It sucks that it happened to him like that. But let's look at the flip side for a second. Are you saying that even though it's her fault. She should now have to look after the kids, with no money. Not get anything even though she's given up years of her working life to raise the kids, and is still raising the kids now?

 

As for the reporting again lets flip it around, lets says it's a woman who left her abusive husband. She's getting child support, but now she has to produce documents of every spent she spends on the child. She has to produce her rent documents, she has to produce all her food bills, restaurant bills, clothing bills. And can you imagine the nightmare for both the parent receiving the money and the court system, if the parent decides to be difficult and challenge every little thing.

 

It's not as easy as just keeping receipts. What percentage of the house expenses can you allocate to the kids? What percentage of the car? What percentage of health benefit fees. Who decides what is a valid expense and what isn't?

 

No, I don't agree, why do we have to care about the fact that she was a stay at home mom but not to the fact that she cheated. She broke the contract in any other contractual agreement she would walk without anything but in here she walked with Children custody, alimony and child support.

 

No fault divorce system is one of the main things I am against marriage... if you sign a contract you sign it with all its consequences!

[fenix]

And to add.. How would someone spilt the grocery bill? I mean if a mother has to go through all of that already. You have to put down how much of the apple the child ate? Have to separate the veggies and meat on a different bill because the father wants to make sure every dollar of his goes to the child? Buying 4 pork chops is cheaper than buy 1 pork chop over time, does he not consider she's saving him money with that?

 

One second, are you trying to tell me that it is only the father the one that needs to support the children? It is easy, mom pays for the non divisible expenses (home and groceries) and pappy pays for the controllable expenses, clothing, medical, etc? If you want you can do it... the problem is that they don't want...

[fenix]

So basically, you are advising your son to never marry because you don't agree with child support laws?

 

Are you truly comfortable giving this advice knowing that he could miss out on a good wife and marriage such as yours?

 

That was what I thought too, the poor son turned into a commitment-phobe by his happily married father????

 

You two are great in selective reading (you read what you want to read). Maybe a bit of comprehensive reading will help you to see that I have not focused on child support, it is something that some other posters have done and I have answered their point.

 

Marriage is a bigger problem than child support, it is about the assets that you bring to your marriage, about the profit those assets make during your marriage, about the emotional breakage of facing a divorce, about losing custody of your children, about having to pay alimony to someone who was cheating on you (as humiliating as that is thanks to the no fault divorce laws), about having to pay child support to children that are not yours biologically, and a long extra list.

 

I am not making my son a commitment phobe, I am not against commitment but against marriage with the actual laws. He doesn't need to miss in a good wife if he has a good girl friend... Many people today choose just to live together and I am 100% in favor to that model.

 

My son will be informed, he will have the example of the marriage of his parents that so far is successful and happy but will be informed that marriage is not always for ever like we were told, that marriage ends up badly more than the half of the times and when that happens he just for being a man will be screwed... Then he can choose what he wants to do.

 

I think the new generation is being clear about what they prefer to do (Not getting married). I don't blame them.

 

I have seen in this thread a lot about protecting women and the laws that protect them, can someone point me to one single law that protect men?

 

My question at the beginning was, why should a young man of the new generation get married? What are his benefits from it? .... Still unanswered!

 

Last but not least, I am happily married, whether you choose to believe that or not doesn't change my reality. But I am not blind and not being abused doesn't mean I can't stand against abuse and definitely bringing awareness about that abuse is a good way to start, not only by explaining to my child the risks of marriage but to anyone that wants to hear what I have to say.

 

Commitment is good but signing a contract with double edge and for which you are the only one that is going to be liable is another totally different thing.

 

We were 8 childhood friends and we all got married, only 1 of my friends and I are still married and non of my friends got custody of their children (2 weekends per month),all they got is all the economical burden. Non of them choose to divorce!

I am well informed how that works because I have seen people I love suffer from it year after year!

 

Edit to add: Before some illuminated says that I equal marriage to abuse... no, marriage is not equal to abuse, the laws that have been built around the marriage are the abuse. Marriage didn't start as a contract but it has become a contract and the way this contract works when the contract is ended (divorce) is completely abusive towards men.

Edited December 21, 2016 by fenix

[lucy_in_disguise]

Divorce laws are intended to protect children. The idea is that assets earned in the marriage belong to both parties regardless of the employment choices the couple made together. Some couples choose to focus on the career of one with the other in a supporting role. The idea is that each partners contribution is equally valuable. If you don't believe stay at home moms' make a valuable contribution, you can teach your son to seek a 2-income relationship.

 

Custody and child support laws are likewise meant to protect the kids. The idea is that both parents pay in to keep their lifestyle similar to that before divorce. Btw child support and alimony are not one and the same. The first is for support of the kids; the latter is spousal support and becoming an outdated concept as more women work.

 

If you want to cite statistics, how about looking into how a higher percentage of women with children end up in poverty after divorce ("unfair" divorce laws notwithstanding). Or how women still make a fraction of what men make, even in the same job. Or how paternityleave in this country is basically non-existent, placing the burden and career toll of child care on women.

[eightytwenty]

One second, are you trying to tell me that it is only the father the one that needs to support the children? It is easy, mom pays for the non divisible expenses (home and groceries) and pappy pays for the controllable expenses, clothing, medical, etc? If you want you can do it... the problem is that they don't want...

No but fine tooth combing it is bs. You both made the child, you both pay for it. Doesn't matter if the money ends up clothes/doctors/baseball camp its spent on the child. If the mother isn't using it correctly take her back to court. Get custody of the child and get her to pay you. You could cut all that out by making sure the person you lay with worth the consequences.

[fenix]

No but fine tooth combing it is bs. You both made the child, you both pay for it. Doesn't matter if the money ends up clothes/doctors/baseball camp its spent on the child. If the mother isn't using it correctly take her back to court. Get custody of the child and get her to pay you. You could cut all that out by making sure the person you lay with worth the consequences.

 

And how can you proof that she is not using it correctly if you are not getting any information on how the money is expended?

[fenix]

Divorce laws are intended to protect children. The idea is that assets earned in the marriage belong to both parties regardless of the employment choices the couple made together. Some couples choose to focus on the career of one with the other in a supporting role. The idea is that each partners contribution is equally valuable. If you don't believe stay at home moms' make a valuable contribution, you can teach your son to seek a 2-income relationship.

 

Custody and child support laws are likewise meant to protect the kids. The idea is that both parents pay in to keep their lifestyle similar to that before divorce. Btw child support and alimony are not one and the same. The first is for support of the kids; the latter is spousal support and becoming an outdated concept as more women work.

 

If you want to cite statistics, how about looking into how a higher percentage of women with children end up in poverty after divorce ("unfair" divorce laws notwithstanding). Or how women still make a fraction of what men make, even in the same job. Or how paternityleave in this country is basically non-existent, placing the burden and career toll of child care on women.

 

Yes divorce laws are there to protect the children but not only the children... Stay at home mums are also protected by divorce law is not to protect the children, custody being granted almost automatically to the mother is not to protect the children..., Alimony is not to protect the children (I have seen fathers paying alimony to the mother even when the children chose to stay with the father ). Assets owned previous to marriage being shared and benefit from this assets being shared is not to protect the children, Unaccountable child support is not to protect the children...

 

Can you give me just one divorce law that is there to protect men? They could make mandatory at the hospitals to make a DNA test to protect men to be duped with taking care of a child that is not his... but they don't and then if you find out and want to divorce you need to pay child support for someone's else son your whole life...

[eightytwenty]

And how can you proof that she is not using it correctly if you are not getting any information on how the money is expended?

 

 

 

Correctly in who's way? The money she didn't use that month might go into a saving for college/vehicle for later on, and the father might not like that and expects the money back?? Is that what your getting at?

 

 

 

 

I think you need to come out with your problem, It's about the control that you would lose...

[fenix]

Correctly in who's way? The money she didn't use that month might go into a saving for college/vehicle for later on, and the father might not like that and expects the money back?? Is that what your getting at?

 

I think you need to come out with your problem, It's about the control that you would lose...

 

Child support is not for saving, it is to support the child. My problem is about people having to pay to support a child and having to accept that the mother will be buying new shoes for herself with that money. It is very humiliating...

Yes is about losing control (thing that women don't need to confront since they are at the receiving end... why would they worry about that?)

 

But child support is only one small part of the issue. As man you lose control of everything, your children, your assets, your money and you see that the weight of the divorce doesn't fall in the same way for both parents...

 

Women usually complain about the unbalance between men and women in various areas (jobs, sports, advertisement, etc..) it is so difficult to accept that men can feel the same way when it comes to divorce? There is a clear unbalance in favor of women and we don't like it. I would have thought that people who feel the unbalance against them so often would have some empathy on the other side when happens to be in their favor ...

Edited December 21, 2016 by fenix

[PrettyEmily77]

I don't particularly care to be married and I'm not personally affected by any of these issues but I don't get the OP's premise either:

 

marriage = a choice, a risky choice but a choice all the same (in most Western countries anyway).

 

divorce = one of 2 possible marriage endings (the other being death); that's not a crazy far-fetched outcome, it's a reasonable expectation when things go awry for whatever reason.

 

kids maintenance = the father's financial responsibility in raising his own kids, regardless of what the mother does.

 

Any guy arguing over 'child maintenance ruining his life' can't be much of a responsible father, on first inspection. From what I gather, kids don't raise themselves for free so a financial contribution is kind of a minimum. I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't be surprised if irresponsible absent fathers were the ones who made it a legal obligation, by acting irresponsibly.

 

What the mother does with that is up to her - the guy still chose her to be the mother of his kid(s), so that may have to be put down to poor judgement on his part if he thinks she's squandering the maintenance left and right (not sure how common that is, and how easy it is to prove beyond bitterness, but whatever). If someone's only reason not to marry is avoiding paying child maintenance in case of a divorce, they don't sound much like father material, never mind marriage material.

 

If the father is so unhappy with how things are going, he should then ask for full custody and review his own working / childcare arrangements, and ask the mother for child maintenance; it is more and more socially accepted nowadays (my ex is a single father, and two of my male friends either have full or at the minimum shared custody of their kids, therefore don't have to pay for child maintenance), besides, that ship is sailing as we speak now these situations affect same-sex couple with kids - this blows the gender side of the argument out of the water, if nothing else.

 

Alimony = what the ex-spouse who earns the most chooses to give to compensate for quality of life. If you have enough money to pay for alimony, really you have nothing to complain about in the scheme of things, in my opinion.

[eightytwenty]

Child support is not for saving, it is to support the child. My problem is about people having to pay to support a child and having to accept that the mother will be buying new shoes for herself with that money. It is very humiliating...

Yes is about losing control (thing that women don't need to confront since they are at the receiving end... why would they worry about that?)

 

But child support is only one small part of the issue. As man you lose control of everything, your children, your assets, your money and you see that the weight of the divorce doesn't fall in the same way for both parents...

 

Women usually control about the unbalance between men and women in various areas (jobs, sports, advertisement, etc..) it is so difficult to accept that men can feel the same way when it comes to divorce? There is a clear unbalance towards women and we don't like it.

 

So investing in college with the extra money is wrong? My son is 9 months old and already has a college fund going. Me and my fiance already decided if the divorce ever happened we would do the best for him. We would sell our assets and spilt the money. Not go through custody, my dads parents are divorced but they maintained friendship and my grandfather made sure my grandmother was taken care of. She also is receiving some of his 401k till this day. She was a sahm but my grandfather made sure he was a man in that situation. My parents divorce when I was 18 and my brother was 14. That was a nasty divorce both went through bankruptcy. My dad got custody of my brother, and in Texas that is a hard thing to do but that's what NY brother wanted. Maybe because I'm naive or young (29) but I have hope that if anything happened me and my fiance could be civil and make it as easy for all of us, especially our son.

[fenix]

I don't particularly care to be married and I'm not personally affected by any of these issues but I don't get the OP's premise either:

 

marriage = a choice, a risky choice but a choice all the same (in most Western countries anyway).

 

divorce = one of 2 possible marriage endings (the other being death); that's not a crazy far-fetched outcome, it's a reasonable expectation when things go awry for whatever reason.

 

kids maintenance = the father's financial responsibility in raising his own kids, regardless of what the mother does.

 

Any guy arguing over 'child maintenance ruining his life' can't be much of a responsible father, on first inspection. From what I gather, kids don't raise themselves for free so a financial contribution is kind of a minimum. I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't be surprised if irresponsible absent fathers were the ones who made it a legal obligation, by acting irresponsibly.

 

What the mother does with that is up to her - the guy still chose her to be the mother of his kid(s), so that may have to be put down to poor judgement on his part if he thinks she's squandering the maintenance left and right (not sure how common that is, and how easy it is to prove beyond bitterness, but whatever). If someone's only reason not to marry is avoiding paying child maintenance in case of a divorce, they don't sound much like father material, never mind marriage material.

 

If the father is so unhappy with how things are going, he should then ask for full custody and review his own working / childcare arrangements, and ask the mother for child maintenance; it is more and more socially accepted nowadays (my ex is a single father, and two of my male friends either have full or at the minimum shared custody of their kids, therefore don't have to pay for child maintenance), besides, that ship is sailing as we speak now these situations affect same-sex couple with kids - this blows the gender side of the argument out of the water, if nothing else.

 

Alimony = what the ex-spouse who earns the most chooses to give to compensate for quality of life. If you have enough money to pay for alimony, really you have nothing to complain about in the scheme of things, in my opinion.

 

Wow, you are the champion of simplification of a long standing issue...

 

The biggest problem is that more than 90% of the cases the mother gets custody (if custody is contested, meaning not prearrangement between the parents before going to court). That by itself is self explanatory...

 

Secondly if a guy has enough money to pay alimony doesn't mean that he wants to give it away to the woman who cheated on him (to put an example)... So if you have enough money you should not worry some one is stealing from you? pfff .... really?

 

 

Third, you are right, marriage is a choice... and my point keeps being, why any intelligent men would want to go that way anymore? There is no benefit for them to do it and young men are not getting married anymore (statistics speak for themselves).

[fenix]

So investing in college with the extra money is wrong? My son is 9 months old and already has a college fund going. Me and my fiance already decided if the divorce ever happened we would do the best for him. We would sell our assets and spilt the money. Not go through custody, my dads parents are divorced but they maintained friendship and my grandfather made sure my grandmother was taken care of. She also is receiving some of his 401k till this day. She was a sahm but my grandfather made sure he was a man in that situation. My parents divorce when I was 18 and my brother was 14. That was a nasty divorce both went through bankruptcy. My dad got custody of my brother, and in Texas that is a hard thing to do but that's what NY brother wanted. Maybe because I'm naive or young (29) but I have hope that if anything happened me and my fiance could be civil and make it as easy for all of us, especially our son.

 

Is not wrong if it is your own money... but you are deciding for the father's money. Anyway if you are doing that, is easy, you open a bank account with the name of your son and you show that in your receipts to justify the expenses... it is not a huge problem that you save money for your children, but using your children support money to buy things for yourself (and I don't mean you, but the receiving mother) is the problem.

 

It all depends how things go, if you cheat on your husband and spit on his values, do you still expect him to be willing to make your life beautiful after divorce?

[PrettyEmily77]

Wow, you are the champion of simplification of a long standing issue...

 

The biggest problem is that more than 90% of the cases the mother gets custody (if custody is contested, meaning not prearrangement between the parents before going to court). That by itself is self explanatory...

 

Secondly if a guy has enough money to pay alimony doesn't mean that he wants to give it away to the woman who cheated on him (to put an example)... So if you have enough money you should not worry some one is stealing from you? pfff .... really?

 

 

Third, you are right, marriage is a choice... and my point keeps being, why any intelligent men would want to go that way anymore? There is no benefit for them to do it and young men are not getting married anymore (statistics speak for themselves).

 

Well a quick research has shown that 90% of custody arrangements are in fact uncontested - that does speak for itself, you are correct = 90% of the time, there are no issues.

 

So your 90% of mothers getting custody comes from the 10% contested cases, often associated with some sort of abuse (in custody issues) or how wealthy the parties are (divorce litigation costs a bomb that few people can actually afford). The fact you think 'alimony' = theft is a little strange, to be honest. Yes, if you can afford alimony, you're one of the lucky few... In any case, now women are working, alimony issues are only disputed among mega millionaires so with all due respect, if you come well prepared and reasonably responsible, there is no reason to avoid marriage on the basis of financial considerations only, in my opinion.

[eightytwenty]

Is not wrong if it is your own money... but you are deciding for the father's money. Anyway if you are doing that, is easy, you open a bank account with the name of your son and you show that in your receipts to justify the expenses... it is not a huge problem that you save money for your children, but using your children support money to buy things for yourself (and I don't mean you, but the receiving mother) is the problem.

 

It all depends how things go, if you cheat on your husband and spit on his values, do you still expect him to be willing to make your life beautiful after divorce?

 

 

But the court awarded the mother the x amount for expenses for the child. One month it might be 20 bucks, the next it could be 3 times the amount he paid. That is up to the mother, I rather have the extra money up incase it's needed. All the Dad had to do is come back and say I'm not paying that because X doesn't need new shoes. if it was a Man that had control of the money and the xwife was the one to pay would you trust the Man more?

 

 

I would never cheat, in all my years I haven't cheated, ever, had plenty of chances with the others I've been with. Just I've seen what it does to people and I couldn't ever do that to the person I love. I would leave way before a EA or a PA.

 

 

I also wouldn't need him to make my life beautiful. I can make it in life with or without a man, and also without child support. Only way I would ever go to court over child support if he was unwilling to pay for anything with our son. I was taught by my Dad never rely on anyone for money or happiness, that gets you hurt.

[fenix]

Well a quick research has shown that 90% of custody arrangements are in fact uncontested - that does speak for itself, you are correct = 90% of the time, there are no issues.

 

So your 90% of mothers getting custody comes from the 10% contested cases, often associated with some sort of abuse (in custody issues) or how wealthy the parties are (divorce litigation costs a bomb that few people can actually afford). The fact you think 'alimony' = theft is a little strange, to be honest. Yes, if you can afford alimony, you're one of the lucky few... In any case, now women are working, alimony issues are only disputed among mega millionaires so with all due respect, if you come well prepared and reasonably responsible, there is no reason to avoid marriage on the basis of financial considerations only, in my opinion.

 

a) You just made up your own statistics.... https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/

 

b) It doesn't matter if I am a millionaire or not...Alimony is not a myth only ofr rich men and not working women... You are supposed to support the other party (even if she is working, to maintain the same level of life she had with you (but without you)). I have two friends who are not millionaires but are paying alimony...

 

c) Avoiding marriage for financial reasons is the major reason why people is not marrying anymore. Assets previous to marriage and the profit of those assets during the marriage are at stake + Alimony ... Today I would advise any young man to go living together without any contract attached to it and to share costs with a percentage of the each other salaries keeping for each other the rest.

[fenix]

But the court awarded the mother the x amount for expenses for the child. One month it might be 20 bucks, the next it could be 3 times the amount he paid. That is up to the mother, I rather have the extra money up incase it's needed. All the Dad had to do is come back and say I'm not paying that because X doesn't need new shoes. if it was a Man that had control of the money and the xwife was the one to pay would you trust the Man more?

.

 

I know the court awarded the mother with x amount of expenses and that is what I think is wrong. I don't think the father should have a say in what needs to be bought or not, but whatever is expended should be justified.

 

 

I would never cheat, in all my years I haven't cheated, ever, had plenty of chances with the others I've been with. Just I've seen what it does to people and I couldn't ever do that to the person I love. I would leave way before a EA or a PA.

 

Again, you are making this about you, but would you expect a man who has been cheated on and dumped to still try to make the life of the ex as easy as possible?

 

I also wouldn't need him to make my life beautiful. I can make it in life with or without a man, and also without child support. Only way I would ever go to court over child support if he was unwilling to pay for anything with our son. I was taught by my Dad never rely on anyone for money or happiness, that gets you hurt.

 

I agree with you with not rely on anyone for money, you should be independent in life but I have learned that I am not an island, while I do not only get my happiness from others, other can really make me happy (for example my wife doing something romantic for me or my son running to me to get kiss when I get home, small things that make my day much better!0

[GunslingerRoland]

Is not wrong if it is your own money... but you are deciding for the father's money. Anyway if you are doing that, is easy, you open a bank account with the name of your son and you show that in your receipts to justify the expenses... it is not a huge problem that you save money for your children, but using your children support money to buy things for yourself (and I don't mean you, but the receiving mother) is the problem.

 

So again, you are expecting the woman to divide up her groceries at the store, into normal items, and kids items, and pay from separate accounts for your inspection. Does the kid get a separate bill at a restaurant? And then there are the expensive bills, housing, electricity, gas, water, insurance, medical, car... you are really expecting the spouse to have to provide their full financial life to their ex? My kids cost me tens of thousands of dollars a year, but very little of that, are things that I'm paying for on a separate basis.

 

And then what if you don't like something? What if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for the fact that your child went to restaurants 8 times last month. Do you take that to the court? You are ignoring my real questions about the logistics of this.

 

Again, I think there are flaws to the child support system that should be addressed, but I don't think this is a reasonable way to address them.

[GunslingerRoland]

.

Again, you are making this about you, but would you expect a man who has been cheated on and dumped to still try to make the life of the ex as easy as possible?

 

 

I hear what you are saying, but do you really expect the court to have a different set of rules for child support depending on the situation.

 

Oh the woman cheated, so now she needs to provide every expense she pays for the kid on an itemized list for inspection by her ex as penance.

 

But this divorce, is because the man abused his wife, so he pays child support without any inspection.

 

And then this third divorce is no fault, they just grew apart, so lets find a happy medium for them because they both seem like nice people.

 

The point of divorce, and especially child support is not to punish the "bad" person in a divorce. The cheater has to answer to their own conscience, family, friends, children and higher power if applicable. They may even have a morality clause at their job. But cheating isn't illegal, and the purpose of divorce isn't, nor should never be, to weigh the evidence and provide a winner based on who was the better spouse.

[fenix]

So again, you are expecting the woman to divide up her groceries at the store, into normal items, and kids items, and pay from separate accounts for your inspection. Does the kid get a separate bill at a restaurant? And then there are the expensive bills, housing, electricity, gas, water, insurance, medical, car... you are really expecting the spouse to have to provide their full financial life to their ex? My kids cost me tens of thousands of dollars a year, but very little of that, are things that I'm paying for on a separate basis.

 

And then what if you don't like something? What if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for the fact that your child went to restaurants 8 times last month. Do you take that to the court? You are ignoring my real questions about the logistics of this.

 

Again, I think there are flaws to the child support system that should be addressed, but I don't think this is a reasonable way to address them.

 

Both the mother and the son need to support the children, not the father only. The mother can pay for the expenses that can't be explained and present the father with the cost that can be explained, some accountability would be better than non. I would definitely bring the case to the court if my ex would bring my son to restaurants 10 times a month... I am sure my child support is not supposed to be doing that.

[fenix]

I hear what you are saying, but do you really expect the court to have a different set of rules for child support depending on the situation.

 

Oh the woman cheated, so now she needs to provide every expense she pays for the kid on an itemized list for inspection by her ex as penance.

 

But this divorce, is because the man abused his wife, so he pays child support without any inspection.

 

And then this third divorce is no fault, they just grew apart, so lets find a happy medium for them because they both seem like nice people.

 

The point of divorce, and especially child support is not to punish the "bad" person in a divorce. The cheater has to answer to their own conscience, family, friends, children and higher power if applicable. They may even have a morality clause at their job. But cheating isn't illegal, and the purpose of divorce isn't, nor should never be, to weigh the evidence and provide a winner based on who was the better spouse.

 

This is not only about child support, I have no issue with parents paying to support their kids, but I think a court should give custody to the father if the mother cheated, I think the mother should not get any alimony if the mother cheated... I think actually that who ever cheats should pay the price for it as it is a breach on the contract.

[PrettyEmily77]

a) You just made up your own statistics.... https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/

 

b) It doesn't matter if I am a millionaire or not...Alimony is not a myth only ofr rich men and not working women... You are supposed to support the other party (even if she is working, to maintain the same level of life she had with you (but without you)). I have two friends who are not millionaires but are paying alimony...

 

c) Avoiding marriage for financial reasons is the major reason why people is not marrying anymore. Assets previous to marriage and the profit of those assets during the marriage are at stake + Alimony ... Today I would advise any young man to go living together without any contract attached to it and to share costs with a percentage of the each other salaries keeping for each other the rest.

 

a) Why would I make it up? It doesn't affect me either way. But as it turns out only 4% of child custody cases go to courts

Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System | The Huffington Post.

 

So by applying pure logic, 96% of child custody cases do not go to court.

 

b) People who can't afford to pay alimony don't. People you can, do. If you were in a marriage with a stay-at-home spouse, your responsibility doesn't end with the marriage - this makes sense to me.

 

c) in most Western countries, a live-in partner has de facto the same legal (and therefore financial) rights as a spouse so I'm not sure what difference it makes, especially when a contract of marriage has been established.

[GunslingerRoland]

This is not only about child support, I have no issue with parents paying to support their kids, but I think a court should give custody to the father if the mother cheated, I think the mother should not get any alimony if the mother cheated... I think actually that who ever cheats should pay the price for it as it is a breach on the contract.

 

Honestly I don't think the reason for the divorce should have any bearing on the custody, unless it is relevant to the child's safety and well being.

 

You can be a horrible spouse and a great parent.

 

As for the alimony, I don't disagree as long as it doesn't include the child support component. But when you take children out of the equation alimony is pretty rare these days.

[GunslingerRoland]

Both the mother and the son need to support the children, not the father only. The mother can pay for the expenses that can't be explained and present the father with the cost that can be explained, some accountability would be better than non. I would definitely bring the case to the court if my ex would bring my son to restaurants 10 times a month... I am sure my child support is not supposed to be doing that.

 

But why should you get that much control over how your ex spends their money and their time with your shared child?

 

Are they fed? Are they clothed? Are they housed? Is there schooling covered? If those things aren't happening I agree that you should be raising it up, and there are legal means for that already.

 

But if your ex spouse for example is frugal with clothing, and drives a beat-up old car, but eats out a couple of times a week, why is it your right to decide that they haven't spent the child support money wisely enough?

[fenix]

Honestly I don't think the reason for the divorce should have any bearing on the custody, unless it is relevant to the child's safety and well being.

 

You can be a horrible spouse and a great parent.

 

As for the alimony, I don't disagree as long as it doesn't include the child support component. But when you take children out of the equation alimony is pretty rare these days.

 

Maybe it is rare in the US but alimony is a painful reality in The Netherlands.

 

I would agree that if the other person is proven to be a not a good parent shouldn't get the custody but in any normal marriage where you have two loving parents the non cheating part should always get custody.

When you cheat on your spouse you are showing you are not a good spouse but also not a good parent, if you are willing to put at risk your children's security and reality for some sexual release... it shows very poor character and that is not the person you want to educate children.

 

No fault divorce laws is the major reason I would advise against marriage.