Quote: (08-29-2015 10:27 PM)Merenguero Wrote:
Quote: (08-29-2015 10:24 PM)rpg Wrote:
Quote: (08-29-2015 10:14 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:All I needed to do was ask around the workplace what kind of deals divorced guys were dealing with and I about shit my pants.
Quote: (08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:
Quote: (08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:
I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.
Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.
"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".
They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.
Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.
And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.
Every guy I met had to find bitch #2 who would take him in and support him while he pays money to bitch #1.
If I end up getting a divorce I am waiting till my kids are 18 and out.
Many, many marriages are waiting for that golden moment when the kids are out.
I think I know the answer to this but when you say "support" are you referring to child support or alimony.
Merenguero, it's a shell game, it doesn't matter what the label they feel like slapping on the transfer payments. "We'll just eliminate that $300 a week you're paying in alimony and add $300 to the the money your'e paying for Child Support instead.". It's a snowjob. Calling it CS just makes it easier to vilify and imprison men.
"He lost his job, he got another one but it didn't pay as well so we threw him in prison" doesn't sound as sympathetic as "The bastard wouldn't pay his child support.".