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.
If you got stuck with over half the debts, the court must have considered them yours.
Then explain to me why I'm paying on a car that (as far as I know) she's still driving.
Illinois isn't a "your debt/my debt" state. Both parties are responsible for debts accumulated together during a marriage unless one party gets to keep the asset associated with a particular share of debt. A lot of it was good ol' fashioned credit card debt, and believe me, I had very little to show for any of the debt I was saddled with except for my college loan. And believe me and the millions of other men out there who have been screwed, the courts certainly do favor women to such an obvious degree that it's hardly even arguable.
That's correct. Not only that -- a study was performed in Massachusetts in the early 1990's with the ostensible purpose of demonstrating that courts are prejudiced against men, and the researchers found, to their surprise, that of the cases in which men actually sued for primary custody, they got it more than 50% of the time.
Did this study happen to account for self-selection bias -- namely, men don't bother fighting to the end for custody unless the woman is such a basket case that they know they have a halfway decent shot? And as for the idea floated earlier in this thread that the court only has to resolve 5% of custody cases (and given the material I read in Family Law, I very very seriously doubt it's only 5%): how much of that is attributable to the lawyers basically conceding that the woman is going to get custody and a fight isn't worth it unless she's an absolute crumb? Seriously, do you people actually believe men prefer to not only not see their kids 25 days out of every month but to have to cough over a check on top of that? C'mon.
Statistics also show that 99% of your alleged facts are fabricated.
Thread starter, I can't give you advise from personal exp. But I'll just suggest to speak w/ people you love and trust (friends and family) to take your mind off things. And do some stress-relieving activity - something you enjoy - whether it's exercising, watching a comedy movie, or reading a funny book. Good luck.
again--poll divorce lawyers---and divorced moms with kids or go to your local library or ANY DIVORCED ORIENTED GROUP--PUBLIC OR SECULAR!
Then explain to me why I'm paying on a car that (as far as I know) she's still driving.
Illinois isn't a "your debt/my debt" state. Both parties are responsible for debts accumulated together during a marriage unless one party gets to keep the asset associated with a particular share of debt. A lot of it was good ol' fashioned credit card debt, and believe me, I had very little to show for any of the debt I was saddled with except for my college loan. And believe me and the millions of other men out there who have been screwed, the courts certainly do favor women to such an obvious degree that it's hardly even arguable.
I don't know what each of you brought into the marriage or what you took out or what your incomes are. The courts will consider all of that when deciding who gets what.
What was the value of the car she took? How much was owed on it? What was the value of the car you took? How much was owed on it? Was your car of more value than hers? Did either of you come into the marriage with a car payment? How long did the marriage last? All of these questions and then some come into play when deciding who pays what.
Since my husband brought more of value into the marriage he would have taken more of value out of it even though we no longer owned most of those assets. Income disparity during the marriage doesn't come into play WRT dividing assets. Impact of income disparity may be considered after the marriage. From what I've seen the court does what they consider is equitable but they work off of a norm so some things you have to fight.
For example, status quo said I needed to cover my husband on my medical insurance becuase that's the way it was during the marriage only he could pick up insurance from his employer but chose not to. Now there is no reason a grown man with a job can't cover his own insurance but because it normally came off of my paycheck, it continued to come off of my paycheck. My insurance would have been free for the kids and I. I paid over $400/month to insure him because of his heart condition. So half of what I got in child support went to pay his medical premium and I also had to pay his co pays.
again--poll divorce lawyers---and divorced moms with kids or go to your local library or ANY DIVORCED ORIENTED GROUP--PUBLIC OR SECULAR!
You can't take a general poll. MOST custody issues are settled OUT OF COURT. Yes, mom usually gets the kids but, USUALLY, that's because that's what dad agreed to. The question you need to ask is how often dad wins when he chooses to fight and, from my experience, I'd say more than she does.
Here, at least, I suspect there is an automatic bias against mom if dad fights because it's so rare for dad to fight. It's like they think there must be something REALLY WRONG with HER if he's willing to fight when it could be something simple like he doesn't want to pay child support (my husband's plan according to our marriage counselor whom he shared all fo this with long before telling me he was leaving). I would have won in the end but it was apparent that they took him at his word when he said negative things about me whereas I had to prove what I said. Fortunately, I could and when challenged he could not but I had to do the challenging WRT him because the court did not.
I don't think we're that unusual here in that dads don't fight for custody and most couples settle these issues out of court, and yes, usually with mom getting the kids but what couples usually aggree to speaks nothing to what courts usually order when the decision is left up to the court.
Yes you are wrong. When my parents got divorced my mom got full custody of us kids and the right to live in the house until we all moved out. Also, she was paid a small amount of child support for each of us until we were 18. My brother was the last to move out and when the house was sold they split the money. Can't really say she made out. Yes, she got to live in the house but she also had to take care of 3 kids and work full time.
How am I wrong?
She got the kids...the house...the child support.
Think about Dad who can be there to see you grow up...has to pay money he doesn't even know where it is going and he has to find another place to live. Yeah...who made out???
Did this study happen to account for self-selection bias -- namely, men don't bother fighting to the end for custody unless the woman is such a basket case that they know they have a halfway decent shot?
No, but that study also didn't take into account that some men sue for custody merely for leverage -- they don't actually want primary custody, but sue for it to force the wife to make concessions in other aspects of the divorce. And when they do sue, they are more likely than not to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
how much of that is attributable to the lawyers basically conceding that the woman is going to get custody and a fight isn't worth it unless she's an absolute crumb?
Although divorce law is not my area, I've shared my office with divorce lawyers for several years, and I know that this is absolutely not true. I have never, ever seen any of them concede custody on the basis of gender. Never. But they frequently encouraged male clients who weren't interested in custody to demand it anyway in order to "squeeze" the wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
Seriously, do you people actually believe men prefer to not only not see their kids 25 days out of every month but to have to cough over a check on top of that? C'mon.
I want to believe that an average parent, male or female, would want to contribute to the financial support of his/her child regardless of the custody arrangement. I mean, these men did "cough up" money for diapers and clothes and baby food when they were married, right -- so how is it different now? I can't stop marveling at the idea that somehow your parental obligations cease when you don't have custody. No, forget "obligations" -- that the custody arrangement suspends even the love you supposedly have for your kids, that as long as they are with the mother, you don't love them enough to make sure they are properly cared for, that their medical bills are paid and their clothes are warm in the winter. Ggawd! Effectively, men who hold such views have renounced their children -- believing that now, with the marriage over, the expenses of raising them should be "the b*tch's problem". In fact, "renounced" isn't even an accurate word: they never had a normal parent-child relationship to begin with. Such view presupposes that a child is like a car, or a house -- that you shouldn't have to pay unless you use it; so if you get to "use" the child, your financial contribution should be proportionate to the amount of benefits you derive from using the child, and if you don't get to use the child, you shouldn't pay. What about the child himself, huh? Wake up, it's 2009, not 1310. A child is not a chattel, not your property, but a human being -- and one you chose to bring into the world full of misery, thank you very much. If any man (and I really hope such people are very few in number) regards his children in such a barbaric way, it is a major blessing to the children that he doesn't have custody.
has to pay money he doesn't even know where it is going and he has to find another place to live. Yeah...who made out???
Although I am happily married, let's use our expenses of raising a child as a guide here, shall we? The median child support award for 1 child in the area where I live is $800 per month. The cost of day care is $1500 per month. So when a child support award covers only a small portion of actual childcare expenses, you do know where the money is going. Unless you are one of those people who believes that divorce is a magical fairy land where 800 bucks a month buys you a three-bedroom suite at the Waldorf and 15 lbs of black caviar, while the child has no expenses at all.
Although I am happily married, let's use our expenses of raising a child as a guide here, shall we? The median child support award for 1 child in the area where I live is $800 per month. The cost of day care is $1500 per month. So when a child support award covers only a small portion of actual childcare expenses, you do know where the money is going. Unless you are one of those people who believes that divorce is a magical fairy land where 800 bucks a month buys you a three-bedroom suite at the Waldorf and 15 lbs of black caviar, while the child has no expenses at all.
You know what saddens me? I know too many men who complain about child support but not about wanting more time with their kids. Divorce takes away, at least, 50% of the time from one parent. They're ok with that but not with paying thier children's bills? I don't get it.
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.
