Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry I missed that. I would need more background then. A woman can not simply keep a father from seeing his kids.
So because of this info I decided to watch (I will note that I did not see even then the source then until near the end).
When did the system start asking if you fear for your safety? What if he had said yes?
Second, the background is still not provided. Courts nowhere take everything from you including your kids and every penny you make. The video is at best incomplete.
Sounds to me that he simply decided to ignore the initial ruling and paid nothing and got far behind on his payments. Now have the courts generally gave the kids to the mother outside of exceptional situations? Yes and I would agree that isn't fair but this doesn't seem to be a good case to make that argument.
I generally agree. A person should not judge the laws of a state due to a single video. It just doesn't seem logical.
Sorry I missed that. I would need more background then. A woman can not simply keep a father from seeing his kids.
So because of this info I decided to watch (I will note that I did not see even then the source then until near the end).
When did the system start asking if you fear for your safety? What if he had said yes?
Second, the background is still not provided. Courts nowhere take everything from you including your kids and every penny you make. The video is at best incomplete.
Sounds to me that he simply decided to ignore the initial ruling and paid nothing and got far behind on his payments. Now have the courts generally gave the kids to the mother outside of exceptional situations? Yes and I would agree that isn't fair but this doesn't seem to be a good case to make that argument.
I would really like to know the background on this case too. It does seem HIGHLY irregular for a judge to award 100% of someones income to an ex, and in most cases, that I know of, there has to be serious issues for a child to be kept from a parent.
There has to be more to this story.
Maybe the guy made a lot more money at the time of divorce, maybe he got laid off and has a lower paying job now, but that could be fixed by returning to court to have alimony revised.
This is hard to fathom but it seems the court put him in a no win situation to begin with. His wife he has to have friends or family in high places or he has some serious enemies. Here is a summary of that happened.
- Wife took everything this Lawyer has (house, money, assets)
- Banned him from seeing his kids
- Lawyer had to pay 100% of pre-Tax income to Wife. Man had to pay for his taxes, food and housing and went broke.
- Loses license to practice Law once he was unable to pay his Child Support.
- Lawyer now in jail in Colorado.
I would really like to know the background on this case too. It does seem HIGHLY irregular for a judge to award 100% of someones income to an ex, and in most cases, that I know of, there has to be serious issues for a child to be kept from a parent.
There has to be more to this story.
Maybe the guy made a lot more money at the time of divorce, maybe he got laid off and has a lower paying job now, but that could be fixed by returning to court to have alimony revised.
Or being a lawyer maybe he is simply claiming he made less.
He makes $200,000. The courts award the wife $50,000. He then claims he is now only making $50,000. Is this what happened? Of course I can not say for sure, but there are all sorts of possible explanations without the complete story.
Or being a lawyer maybe he is simply claiming he made less.
He makes $200,000. The courts award the wife $50,000. He then claims he is now only making $50,000. Is this what happened? Of course I can not say for sure, but there are all sorts of possible explanations without the complete story.
This is hard to fathom but it seems the court put him in a no win situation to begin with. His wife he has to have friends or family in high places or he has some serious enemies. Here is a summary of that happened.
- Wife took everything this Lawyer has (house, money, assets)
- Banned him from seeing his kids
- Lawyer had to pay 100% of pre-Tax income to Wife. Man had to pay for his taxes, food and housing and went broke.
- Loses license to practice Law once he was unable to pay his Child Support.
- Lawyer now in jail in Colorado.
A new, even more punitive, alimony law was *just* passed by the Colorado Legislature. Guaranteed alimony in any marriage or civil union over 3 years, default amount is 40% of gross income, with child support on top of that if you have children. If you have been married over 20 years, alimony is for LIFE. If you lose your job, you are expected to liquidate all assets to continue paying the alimony, and if you run out of assets, you are thrown in jail for as long as the judge and your ex-spouse think is appropriate. In addition, you are required to carry and pay for a life insurance policy on yourself, payable to your ex.
Alimony after three years? Why?
I don't believe in alimony, except in rare circumstances. Child support, yes, but why alimony? Once a woman is divorced, she's incapable of supporting herself?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
