true... but she will and can prove to be an obstacle to any future female endeavors - depending of course on her level of psychosis.

i still dont recommend marriage.

think about it; you are entering into a life long business partnership with another individual based almost entirely upon one anothers emotions.

Not always, depends on financial prowess as well. Hell, my brother said he was marrying into $7.50 an hour. Of course that was 20 years ago. :haha: He is still happily married and running his own business. She is the head nurse of the Hosptial in Frederick MD. They both drive fine German automobiles...the ones with peace signs on the hood. :03: Not all marriages end in ruin. Sometimes it is not cheaper to keep her. In my view, once the kids hit 18 any and all dollars going monthly to mom should stop. That includes alimony. However, the law sees thing differently than I.

Here's a question to ponder, sorta OT but still pertains in a way. Why get married at all in this day and age? What would be the advantages/disadvantages?

Haha, thanks, but my child support has never been in arrears even by a single day, over 14 years :) Even after being laid off over a year now.

Alimony was certainly important for women who had no major previous employment experience, and did not work during the marriage, but raised kids. In the olden days men could just walk out on their families, leaving the women often with many kids and no real way to support them.

Nowadays I think it is still important, if in the family one of the parents is a primary care giver with no career. You have to keep in mind that to be a stay at home parent, you totally sacrifice your career and will make far less money after the divorce then your spouse who was the breadwinner. A career takes a lot of time and effort to gain, and is not something you can just jump into later on as easily. Its just like trying to suddenly change careers to something totally different. Primary care giving is a career, just not a paying one.

I also don't disagree with splitting property, provided both parties were reasonably contributing to it, or the family structure (ie primary care giver). If one person was living off the other though, then its a different story (like a rich person marrying a 'trophy' spouse), prenuptuals are also often a good idea.

So what is it that brought up alimony? Personally I agree with you and it takes two to tango in a divorce. Alimony is antiquated at best. All should stop when the children have hit 18.

True, but they only cover before the marriage. If my GF took out a loan for $10,000, we got married, and no prenup was signed, than that legally becomes my debt upon her death or our divorce.

I probably misunderstood you, but given that mom has a claim for maintenance against dad, which you can easily calculate, if you know both incomes and financial burdens, part of this claim for maintenance would be that dad has to finance in advance mom's legal costs for the action for support against dad, if she can't.

This means, dad has to give mom the money mom needs to pay mom's lawyer who will then sue dad for maintenance if dad is still not encouraged to compromise after losing his first trial.

So dad pays for both lawyers under any circumstances if she has a claim for maintenance, at least over here.

Is that what you mean, did i miss the irony?

Never mind! It was just, that I had this terrible thought coming to my mind.

I do not believe that is true. Premarital possession do not fall under marital possesson. Therefore the loan was before the marriage is hers only. Your name is not on it. How can the loan institution go after you? If they want their money just give them her new address at the cemetary to send the bill. I have seen others do that. My college roommate mom did that to the IRS. The IRS said her husband owned back taxes. She gave them the cemetary address. After all , he owned the taxes and not her. They never called again.

If you owned the house before marriage it is not marital possessions and does not fall under the 50/50 rule. She however can claim monies for improvements and such. She then might get proceeds if the house is sold.

No sir, dad does not have to pay for the lawyer. Get a court appointed one if either party can not afford a lawyer. My sister paid for her own lawyer. There has been no money exchanged for alimony or child support. That comes after the judge makes the ruling. Most lawyer if not all take payment up front. :03:

There is this saying here, something to the tune of if brute force was not your last resort you failed to resort to enough of it. Rings true in most cases.

There is so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to begin :D Since your sister is in Texas, I guess Texas family law applies....I have a little experience with that.

School lets out at 3 pm. What are you to do with your 8 year old. Latch key kid?
After school day care, until they are 12 or 13, that's what the rest of us do.

Also, are you to take the kids who lived in a nice home and then have them dumped in some place of squalar because that is all mom can afford?
Agreed, it's not fair to the kids. But can't mom afford an apartment? Does it have to be squalor? With or without kids, mom has to live somewhere.

My two nieces are seeing a specialist because of this divorce. Mom gets the bill and rest of it.
By law, dad has to pay have the costs that exceed insurance coverage, and he has to pay all the insurance costs.

Also, since dad is paying CS he gets the write off on taxes, no?
Haha--no. Not at all. Mom gets custody and the tax exemption. You cannot write off any CS on your taxes. Who told you that?

In all reality dad can go deliver pizza and pay his percentage on that as CS.
You would think so, and in reality, any married dad can deliver pizza too, if he chooses. But an divorced dad can be ordered to pay whatever the judge feels he is capable of earning.

There has been no money exchanged for alimony or child support.
Normally, the judge orders temp CH and spousal support as soon as the wife files. I thought she was getting alimony already?

Also, if dad has such an issue with it, get full custody of the kids.
Oh reallly!! :o Sounds easy if you say it quickly. Seriously, even with unfit mothers, that almost never happens. Mom gets custody, if she wants it. She gets to keep the house, because that where the babies live. And dad pays way over and above what it takes to fully finance the kids, (not just 50% of normal costs, where mom is expected to chip in her 50%, it's more like dad pays mom about 175% of what the kids cost each month) mainly because the state wants to makes sure that they don't end up covering mom's costs. That's the facts.

What can I say? I know more deadbeat dads the ones that pay like ordered.
What kind of company do you keep? I have heard of a few deadbeat dads, but they're serious screwups who cannot hold a job. The normal men I know who are divorced pay CS as a matter of course.


I don't doubt your sister is the injured party and her ex is a useless dick. That definitely does not mean that the way custody and CS is structured is fair or even beneficial for the kids. I think of the $140,000+ I've paid in CS and really regret I could not have made sure my kids had the benefit that money could have brought them.

I didn't bring up CS, that was antikristuseke and you :)

I'm not arguing that CS is wrong (although it is one-sided and disproportionate), I'm talking about paying money to an ex-wife for years and years. That's crazy.

Actually, not true ;)
It takes two to agree to a marriage, no one can wake up one morning and say, "You know what, we're getting a marriage tomorrow."
It only takes one to bring about a divorce. They other person has zero options. If spouse A wants to get a divorce, spouse B is going to be divorced.

Want to guess what the statistics are that women are the plaintiff? ;)

Well gentleman, let me add another view here.

I have 2 children. My oldest is now 9. His mother and I split when he was 2. I won't go into alot of detail, but after an extended battle, the decision was "joint" custody - but she had "primary" - meaning I got to see my son every other weekend. I was also ordered to pay over $650 a month in CS - while being unemployed.

From the time she got him - to the time he was 7 years old - a period of 5 years (or 130 scheduled visits), he was withheld over 80 of those times. There were periods when I didn't get to see him for a year at a time. I had my ex-wife found to be in contempt, got to see my son for 2 months, then again he was withheld. I was investigated over a dozen times by Child Protective Services - mainly anytime I forced her to allow me access to my son. Every accusation in the book was leveled against me.

Finally, a very in-depth investigation, conducted by a PHD, was done. Its results, as well as the support of my son's counsellor (whom his mother had hand picked), DSS, my son's current emotional state, etc, all those factors finally resulted in custody being changed. I now have primary custody of him. 5 years of absolute hell to protect and save my little boy.

I'd do it all again in a heartbeat. Today, two years later, he sees his mother every other weekend, she gets her time with him in the summer, and he has done a 180, now being successful in school, socially and emotionally. He was released from counselling after a year, because he was thriving in a stable and healthy environment. In the two years I have had him, he has not missed a single visit with his mother.

I am so proud of him, because I know it was, and still is, ungodly tough on him.

He is on my insurance - his mother had him on medicaid - she has spent the last 7 years since I left her in "school" - and after 7 years, just this last one got a 2 year online degree. She still doesn't work though, and for the last two years - her CS has been $50 a month. She is supposed to pay for half of anything the insurance doesn't cover, as well as half the copays, etc. I could take her back for an adjustment based purely on the fact that I am paying for his insurance. I haven't ever seen a dime from her.

The system is biased - getting custody takes a long battle and a very attentive judge. Mine was a woman with kids of her own, and we were able to demonstrate beyond doubt that his mother was a horribly irresponsible person who didn't take care of her children, but instead created the emotional turmoil my son was going through.

I can't speak to alimony - in this state there is no such thing anymore I don't think. If there was, I am sure she would have asked for it when we split. But make no mistake, a custody battle for a father is probably the hardest thing to win in this life.