Alimony

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Pre-nuptuals brother

Women and men are taught that even mentioning a pre-nup is bad bad bad. Some would even accuse you of being a sexist over it.

No if I get in a relationship. Let it be free of BS.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Women and men are taught that even mentioning a pre-nup is bad bad bad. Some would even accuse you of being a sexist over it.

No if I get in a relationship. Let it be free of BS.

It is bad? That is new one on me. Sorry, if I make millions before the marriage those millions are not going with the x-wife if she decides screwing the gardener is much more fun. If she does not like it...well then...I will be shoving off.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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?

I did not bring up CS to you, just the alimony part. Alimony is antiquated...agreed! You have first hand experience on divorce where I do not. I only speak of what I know concerning my sisters divorce. True, it only takes one to call the ball. But looking at it, should someone be stuck in an abusive relationship? Certainly not therefore the one can call the ball and file for divorce. Seems only fair. I can guarantee the number of women plaintiffs is very high. Women are fickle. Most will drop a man like a bad habit because the sky was not blue enough today and other silly synapse that go through their brains. It is like my wife, when she is losing an argument she always say, "This is just not working out." Well of course not when you are losing the argument. If she is winning...all is well in her world. That is typical of anyone really.

[Platapus]

What I don't understand about Child Support is that the parent receiving it does not have to produce receipts that the money was, in fact, spent on supporting the child.

As they say: A man is incomplete until he get's married. After that he is finished.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Platapus

What I don't understand about Child Support is that the parent receiving it does not have to produce receipts that the money was, in fact, spent on supporting the child.

That sir would be controlling and probably more controlling than when the couple were co-habitating. That is my sisters case. She could not do a thing without prior approval yet she was the one worth over a million dollars when it came to HER business. Her soon to be X was way over the line in controlling.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

That sir would be controlling and probably more controlling than when the couple were co-habitating. That is my sisters case. She could not do a thing without prior approval yet she was the one worth over a million dollars when it came to HER business. Her soon to be X was way over the line in controlling.

Yes but when the couple was co-habitating, they were not under a court ordered action. That is the significant difference.

If the court orders either party to pay money for a specific purpose, I feel that the court has the right and responsibility to ensure that the money is used for that purpose. The court does not seem to have any problems ensuring that the money was paid, but seems reluctant to ensure that it is used properly.

I am sure we have all heard stories of women taking child support and spending the money on themselves and buying the children the minimum. .

About 30 years ago, one of my troops was getting divorced from his wife. She was asking $600.00 per month child support for one child. My troop was, at the time, an E-4 bringing home around $1,000 per month total.

He tried to challenge that he was supposed to pay for 1/2 of the upkeep of his child. He was able to provide for himself, his wife and his son on $1,000 per month. How can she claim that she needs $1,200 per month just to take care of his son? The reason is that since the State did not have alimony, she wanted "child support" to be her support. He lost the challenge, and could not get any information on what she was spending on his child and what she was using for her (and her soon to be live in boyfriend).

The system is very unfair and unbalanced. I saw way too many of my troops get screwed over.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

About 30 years ago, one of my troops was getting divorced from his wife. She was asking $600.00 per month child support for one child. My troop was, at the time, an E-4 bringing home around $1,000 per month total.

He tried to challenge that he was supposed to pay for 1/2 of the upkeep of his child. He was able to provide for himself, his wife and his son on $1,000 per month. How can she claim that she needs $1,200 per month just to take care of his son? The reason is that since the State did not have alimony, she wanted "child support" to be her support. He lost the challenge, and could not get any information on what she was spending on his child and what she was using for her (and her soon to be live in boyfriend).

That's the BS aspect of "child support". It's not the father's 50% of what it takes to care for a child, it's more like 175%. Please show me how many guys here make $5000 a month and can show month in and out they spend $2000 on their child.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

That's the BS aspect of "child support". It's not the father's 50% of what it takes to care for a child, it's more like 175%. Please show me how many guys here make $5000 a month and can show month in and out they spend $2000 on their child.

I certainly do not pay that much for both my girls combined. I do agree the system is not balanced at all. That is why a case by case basis needs to be addressed. It is just cookie cutter and stamped with approval in the courts. Problem is this has gone of for years. Dad are always seen as the issue and get it in the end. There are those that do the right thing and then there are those like my brother-in-law who is $25000.00 behind.