Why would you want to marry?

[fenix]

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?

 

And why not? It is my money and it is my son...if you work for a company and you expend with the corporate credit card that they have give you in trust to operate on their behalf money in a Playstation 4 and drinking and having dinner with your friends... don't you think the company may have something to say about the use of its money?

[eightytwenty]

And why not? It is my money and it is my son...if you work for a company and you expend with the corporate credit card that they have give you in trust to operate on their behalf money in a Playstation 4 and drinking and having dinner with your friends... don't you think the company may have something to say about the use of its money?

 

 

Some things you don't get to control. The mother is awarded custody and control on how to spend the money. This isn't a job/company/corporation its a child that has expenses.

[fenix]

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.

 

All the quoted sources that that newspaper claim to have are dead links. I don't know where they get their information but I definitely do not believe it.

The only link that really works brings us to a divorce specialist (woman) who has an agenda behind that study.

My source was the US census Statistics... not a divorce "coach" looking for profit...

[fenix]

Some things you don't get to control. The mother is awarded custody and control on how to spend the money. This isn't a job/company/corporation its a child that has expenses.

 

Yes, I know how it works... I understand that the mother gets awarded with a fix amount and that she is not accountable for what she does with the money.

But that is something I do not agree with and one of the reasons I think marriage is a fraud for men. Once a man is married is trapped by the system and if you get divorce prepare yourself for catastrophe.

[GunslingerRoland]

And why not? It is my money and it is my son...if you work for a company and you expend with the corporate credit card that they have give you in trust to operate on their behalf money in a Playstation 4 and drinking and having dinner with your friends... don't you think the company may have something to say about the use of its money?

 

This whole analogy shows why you are so passionate about this, and yet why you are so wrong.

 

You cheated on me and now we are divorced, so I OWN you, I am your boss. You will do what I say when I say it.

 

You want the cheating spouse to crawl through the door to beg for money for the child. I understand the sentiment, but realize that again, that isn't the point of child support or divorce.

 

If I'm in charge of a department at work, and I have a company credit card, and I buy a Playstation 4 to put in the break room, then I may clear it with my superior first depending on my level of autonomy.

 

But if your ex is purchasing a Playstation 4 for your child, whether you agree with it or not, isn't your choice, yes it was your money, but no you aren't her boss.

 

When it comes to raising kids there are obviously needs and wants. I think we are in agreeance that the needs have to be covered. But you seem to think that a child shouldn't have a cent more than their necessities covered by child support. I don't agree with that. Plus you've already conceded that most of the needs are hard to individualize to the child (housing, groceries, health, transportation) and should be covered by the "primary" custodian. So it's exactly everything else that the child support would cover, but that you've already said you would scrutinize and micromanage.

[PrettyEmily77]

All the quoted sources that that newspaper claim to have are dead links. I don't know where they get their information but I definitely do not believe it.

The only link that really works brings us to a divorce specialist (woman) who has an agenda behind that study.

My source was the US census Statistics... not a divorce "coach" looking for profit...

 

No, your source comes from a blogger called dalrock, also with an agenda, so not much better.

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf - here is the US Census Statistics, a very enlightened read by all accounts, especially in terms of the clear links between single-parenthood and poverty.

 

By the way, custodial parent = who has primary care of the kids, not who wants to have primary case of the kids, not even the biological parents in some cases (can be grandparents or other family members). This really is a very significant distinction.

 

You don't have to believe the stats provided in the link - you can look it up yourself and you will see that contested child custody cases are very rare.

[carhill]

I was sitting here trying to think of some compelling reasons for getting married after having seemingly a lifetime of them and could only recall Tim Schuster getting cooked in acid, definitely not the poster child in support of why to get married.

 

Nowadays, with children, apparently the sub-topic the thread has trended to, off the table, I'd probably, if really committed, do a POA for finance and health and a trust as appropriate and not cohabitate. Far less expensive and debilitating to enact and dissolve than a divorce lawsuit.. BTDT.

 

I'd like to blame Reagan for starting the no-fault divorce slippery slope down this path but really it's us, regular folks, who make the choices that end things up where they are.

[Got it]

I am not a young man anymore, not old but also not young. I'm 44 years old and when I met my wife marriage meant a different thing that it means today.

I have a 5 years old son and if he ever ask me I will advise him not to marry.

My personal experience with marriage has been good, I have a wonderful woman who loves me and is a great mother to my son but when I look around I feel lucky. Many of my friends are divorced and have little to not access to see their kids while paying huge amounts of Alimony.

 

I searched on internet some statistics (available for anyone of you to check) and between 50% and 75% of marriages end in divorce (depending on geography). Between 60% and 90% of all the divorces are initiated by women (again depending of geography) being the major reason for this that they have found someone else.

An average of 80% of the divorce cases end up with custody in favor of the women and in more than the 90% of the cases there is alimony to be paid by the men to the women.

 

Can some of the young men of today explain to me why would they choose to marry? Well sadistically they don't choose to marry anymore (as they did in the past) , the number of weddings have dropped between 15% to 30% depending of the geography.

 

Marriage is an long term investment that will have most of the long term costs for the men and not for the women. When men want to divorce they are trapped by the fear to lose their kids and the economical burden when women are rewarded if they choose to divorce.

 

what is your opinion about this facts?

 

Where did you find your stats, can you please cite them.

[Shining One]

To answer the original question, I would marry if the financial risk to me is minimal (roughly equal financial risk to both me and the woman) and if I feel that the marriage will bring more good to my life than harm. As it stands right now, the odds are stacked against me getting married, but a perpetual, committed relationship is far more likely.

[Got it]

Never mind saw that it was discussed and the agenda of it.

 

Sigh, same old same old.

[DrReplyInRhymes]

I want to marry someday because that's what I want.

 

I don't have anything, I can't see my son anymore, so what do I have to lose? Perfect time to try and get married in my opinion.

 

If, when, if ever I have substantial assets to my name, I'll be certain to reevaluate my want of being married to a woman I adore.

[BikerAccnt]

No, your source comes from a blogger called dalrock, also with an agenda, so not much better.

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf - here is the US Census Statistics, a very enlightened read by all accounts, especially in terms of the clear links between single-parenthood and poverty.

 

 

 

Thank you Emily. I've stayed out of this discussion but Fenix's posting of blog links and stating them as fact was getting a bit annoying. True, government facts can be wrong also, but generally, they pass some sort of background/reliability testing before they are published.

 

The links being posted reminded me very much of the fake news controversy swirling all around anymore.

[BikerAccnt]

Oh,

 

And I'm 56. Did the divorce thing, did the live together thing. And YES, I would get married again.

 

Why? Because to me it's the deepest signal of commitment you can make, to show that you are "all in." Sure it may not work out, but what in life is guaranteed. Sure it's a legal contract, and maybe that's what I like about it. I sure wouldn't take on anything else of such import without a contract in place

[OneLov]

I want to marry someday because that's what I want.

 

I don't have anything, I can't see my son anymore, so what do I have to lose? Perfect time to try and get married in my opinion.

 

If, when, if ever I have substantial assets to my name, I'll be certain to reevaluate my want of being married to a woman I adore.

 

EXACTLY!!

 

The vast majority of people do not marry at 44, and are established financially with children. They marry when they're young and broke.

 

They have no idea what is in store for them. They may not even have kids. God forbid one suffers a terrible accident or illness. I sure would hope I was not with a partner with a what's-in-it-for-me attitude. I do not know of any FWB that will wipe your a** for you.

 

I'm not going to speak to the ridiculous statement that men routinely get screwed over more than women in divorce. As an attorney who has actual experience with family law, my opinion is long settled.

 

Also, the statement regarding damages from breech of contract is patently incorrect. Reliance damages, not expectation damages, are the standard measure of compensating the non-breaching party. A court does not aim to award the non-breaching party with the benefit of the bargain, rather, it attempts to compensate the non-breaching party for his/her/its actual reliance. Moreover, the statement fails to consider that restitution, which is a legal principle that has existed long before the US court system was even established, serves as a check against gains-based recovery.

 

Spousal support/alimony is simply a form of restitution.

 

If you do not want to pay child support, then be 100% responsible for the child 3.5 days a week. If you have to work--pay someone to take care of the child. If you want the other parent to take care of the child, so you do not have to pay someone else to, then you need to compensate him/her for sacrificing his/her ability to earn an income. To me, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Either way, you have to pay the piper.

 

But if you do not want the responsibility of raising the child, nor pay reasonable fees to ensure he or she is being adequately taken care of, then that's called cake eating.

Edited December 21, 2016 by OneLov

[eightytwenty]

OP, This is what I've thought about all day and how to respond.

 

 

For the SAHM:

 

 

If a man and woman, married and had a child early(say early 20). The woman gave up going to college and have a career to stay home and be with the child. The man goes to school and has a job till he finishes college. 5 years down the road, a divorce happens. Doesn't matter who is at fault the marriage ends but it did (to make it better for you the man found a new lover and the wife found out). The man also travels a lot and doesn't have the means to take the child to school, so the xw receives the child support.

 

 

The way you put it. The now xw should be thrown out of the house. receive NOTHING because she was the one that made the choice to be a SAHM (even at the time it was a mutual decision when they married), find a job to support herself which without having a job ever would be hard, and also report to the xh about the spending of HIS money for the child, and have FULL say over his part.

 

 

Is it her fault that she stopped going to school to care for the child? Yes but it was also BOTH of their choice for that, instead of day care. Basically restart her life.

 

 

So now never having a job, other than being a SAHM, she would need to find somewhere to work, and make enough to cover a place for her to live, a vehicle, and everything else. This is where the judge would award alimony, but for you, OP, that's wrong because that is YOUR money.

 

 

I think your view as a man, you have no idea who hard it is to be in this situation.

 

 

Now for the wife that cheated on the husband.

 

 

Doesn't matter who did wrong, even if you think so. This is where marriage AND common law come in. If she's been raising your child all of it's life she is still owed a alimony because in fact, She gave up that for you and the child... Get it, FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILD. Yes she might enjoy it, but let me tell you, most sahm's go stir crazy, and they don't really have lives outside of that house till all the kids go to school.

 

 

If both parents work. The mother gets her part, the husband gets his. Spilt somethings, other parts get bought out by the other. In this I fully agree the wife shouldn't get alimony. Joint custody, no child support. The man pays for certain things, and the other parent pays for the other. If one is awarded custody then (man or woman) they need to pay, and not complain as long as the child is cared for.

 

 

No one needs to micro-manage a ex, that's just more arguments, more money fighting the other, and more court fees. In the end the micro-managing is going to cost more anyways.

 

 

So my point is. Divorcing you lose control, and by you I fully see that is where that problem lies, and also how much you're money means to you. Marriage is a promise, it's a commitment to each other for the long hard haul. It's worth it, with the right person. as you know! Money shouldn't be before the child in any case.

[basil67]

Following from eightytwenty's comments...

 

My partner made it clear that he wanted me to be a SAHM. He earns enough to support the whole family and thought that my presence at home would have greater benefit than me working. I could have stood against his wishes, but I happen to agree with him.

 

Problem for SAHMs is that the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it becomes to re-enter. In our situation, I ended up full time carer for our disabled child and haven't worked for 20 years. *If* we broke up, and I could magically find someone to care for our child, my lack of work during all this time leaves me only able to do minimum wage jobs. Do you think it fair that a woman who has stayed at home at her husband's wishes and has become virtually unemployable because of that should be left with no support?

 

Because I am a carer, I know many other full time carers. You wanna see some divorce stats? Have a look at families who have disabled kids. It will blow your mind. Anyway.... I know so many women who are living below the poverty line because their carer duties mean they can't work and the ex-husbands don't assist financially.

 

There are many cases where I don't agree with alimony. But if a partner cannot work at more than minimum wage because it was agreed that they should be a stay at home parent.....Or if they cannot work because they have to care for a member of the family, why should the working partner get to walk away from that and leave the other destitute?

[SaltAndLight]

The men would choose to marry because of the need of the husband, father, leader, protector, provider, etc in the home. Men were not created to be alone and women were created for the man! It was all set up that way by God in the beginning.... the issue and cause of divorces in majority of the cases is that people are to "I" centered rather than "We" centered. We have lost the concept and example in the home of what it truly means to be a family.. without the man, a true family is not complete.

[sandylee1]

There are enough men that don't live in fear of marriage and being fleeced, for a woman who wants marriage not to settle for cohabitation.

 

If women who want to get married, don't settle for less, then more men would step up, rather than be without a family.

 

There are a lot of women who live with a man, have kids etc, then end up in turmoil because a proposal isn't forthcoming. A man who wants to marry a woman, will do that and not think about 'the what if'. Or marry a woman who earns a similar amount to you.

[thefooloftheyear]

While there is all kinds of love for women who "give up" whatever to be wives/sahm's, there is little to no love for the men that have spent practically their entire working lives, sometimes working 12+ hrs a day, seven days a week, etc. to make all of it happen....It's probably a fair statement that some of these guys have actually lost life expectancy and sacrificed general health and well being(try putting a $$ amount on that??)...Let's face it, its NOT easy....They are just supposed to take it on the chin and tough luck..??

 

 

I had an office manager that would often complain that her bf wouldn't propose...(bear in mind she is 50 and was married twice, he is 60 and been married twice himself with grand kids)..She said she was getting close to giving him an ultimatum...When I asked her if, other than the ring/proposal was she happy in the relationship? She said yes, but that she wanted the ring, so "he didn't have an easy way out"....Now I can't say this is true of all women, but I doubt she is alone in that mindset...I mean, is it meant to be a trap for a guy??

 

I've never known any guy that "forced" his wife to never work once a kid came along..Or even not use the time to further education in a part time capacity..I won't say it's true of all, but many women think once the kid comes, then its just impossible to do anything else, so they just let the guy kill himself..and resentment builds...

 

 

I've often felt that a marriage should be like a drivers license...Every 4 years, both parties have to agree to continue, or the license becomes void...It wouldn't be a problem for people in lifelong commitments, they can simply sign off on it and keep it going...But for some, it may give pause for some thought and introspection..It would save tons of people and kids from all of the entanglements of a messy(er) divorce...

 

TFY

Edited December 22, 2016 by thefooloftheyear

[SoleMate]

OP, can you tell us......why did you start this thread? Are you trying to convince us? Or, it seems perhaps, you're trying to convince yourself. The fact is, no one on this forum is trying to force you to marry. You're free to decide for yourself whether it is or isn't worth it. As is every other man or woman out there.

 

Anyone facing such a decision would do best to take a balanced view of all the pros and cons. You view is quite skewed. Women aren't winners after divorce when those with custody endure poverty at twice the rate of custodial fathers, for instance. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf Less than 2/3 of the child support owed across the US was paid in 2011. This affects women the most as women form the majority of custodial parents (roughly 80% in 2011). For a divorced mother to "win" support from her XH simply to support their child - which is the duty of both parents - isn't a gift or windfall to the mother, it's simply payment of a legal and moral obligation. To think she's a winner for getting awarded child support makes as much sense as a non-divorced father seeing his children as freeloaders.

 

There is so much energy to promote this skewed view of marriage - I wonder why? I recommend getting some facts, not just recycling the biased bitterness.

[Woggle]

There are enough men that don't live in fear of marriage and being fleeced, for a woman who wants marriage not to settle for cohabitation.

 

If women who want to get married, don't settle for less, then more men would step up, rather than be without a family.

 

There are a lot of women who live with a man, have kids etc, then end up in turmoil because a proposal isn't forthcoming. A man who wants to marry a woman, will do that and not think about 'the what if'. Or marry a woman who earns a similar amount to you.

 

How about marriage minded women seek marriage minded men and vice versa?

[basil67]

While there is all kinds of love for women who "give up" whatever to be wives/sahm's, there is little to no love for the men that have spent practically their entire working lives, sometimes working 12+ hrs a day, seven days a week, etc. to make all of it happen....It's probably a fair statement that some of these guys have actually lost life expectancy and sacrificed general health and well being(try putting a $$ amount on that??)...Let's face it, its NOT easy....They are just supposed to take it on the chin and tough luck..??

 

The men I know who support their families can do so working 9 -10 hrs a day, 5 days a week. My husband certainly falls into that category. Although I am sure it's very different for men who don't have a profession.

 

I had an office manager that would often complain that her bf wouldn't propose...(bear in mind she is 50 and was married twice, he is 60 and been married twice himself with grand kids)..She said she was getting close to giving him an ultimatum...When I asked her if, other than the ring/proposal was she happy in the relationship? She said yes, but that she wanted the ring, so "he didn't have an easy way out"....Now I can't say this is true of all women, but I doubt she is alone in that mindset...I mean, is it meant to be a trap for a guy??

 

I don't get this either. If this is her third marriage, she out to know that divorce still makes for an easy way out.

 

I

've never known any guy that "forced" his wife to never work once a kid came along..Or even not use the time to further education in a part time capacity..I won't say it's true of all, but many women think once the kid comes, then its just impossible to do anything else, so they just let the guy kill himself..and resentment builds...

 

There are different ways to "force" a woman to stay home. My husband didn't block me from working. But he did make it clear that he didn't want to be the primary income earner and have to come home at the end of a long day and help with housework. So yes, I could have gone and got a job, but I'd be working AND doing all the home stuff too. While I wasn't forced to stay home, I knew that I couldn't work and do all the domestic stuff without much help.

 

All that said, having a disabled child ending up forcing me to stay home anyway.

[Woggle]

Why would anybody want to marry somebody to trap them? If my wife isn't staying out of her own free will and desire to be with me I don't want to be with her. If you have to put somebody on lock they don't really love you.

[thefooloftheyear]

The men I know who support their families can do so working 9 -10 hrs a day, 5 days a week. My husband certainly falls into that category. Although I am sure it's very different for men who don't have a profession.

 

 

 

I don't get this either. If this is her third marriage, she out to know that divorce still makes for an easy way out.

 

I

 

There are different ways to "force" a woman to stay home. My husband didn't block me from working. But he did make it clear that he didn't want to be the primary income earner and have to come home at the end of a long day and help with housework. So yes, I could have gone and got a job, but I'd be working AND doing all the home stuff too. While I wasn't forced to stay home, I knew that I couldn't work and do all the domestic stuff without much help.

 

All that said, having a disabled child ending up forcing me to stay home anyway.

 

 

Giving your personal experiences doesn't make any one else's invalid...Its just your personal experiences..

 

Yes, that's what she said...She didn't want him to have an easy out...Maybe the other guys were broke and this guy has money, so that's her angle...I don't know, you would have to ask her, I didn't say it, I just heard it..

 

I don't know where you live, but here, unless you are a hedge fund manager or brain surgeon, you are going to work very hard to do it on one salary...

 

TFY

[thefooloftheyear]

Why would anybody want to marry somebody to trap them? If my wife isn't staying out of her own free will and desire to be with me I don't want to be with her. If you have to put somebody on lock they don't really love you.

 

 

Why would anyone want to trap a guy with a pregnancy, right?? and that happens just about every day, I suppose..

 

Otherwise, I agree 100% ..

 

TFY