Post Divorce Process

[midjd]

Karma to Tbird, very keen observation. I've noticed this, too.

Although there are a lot of codependent people out there (or at least I know quite a few) who date "losers" because they need to feel needed in a relationship. My mom is like this - I think she's spent so long taking care of her 3 kids that now that we're all out of the house, she doesn't know what to do if she's not taking care of *someone*. This seems to be more of a female trait.

So plenty of fault to go around for both genders

As far as a response to the OP, I agree with Swamp that many times, the parties' expectations of what can be gained from the legal process are unrealistic. Not to say that some cases don't end with unfair results (like Apple's situation), but I think most DR attorneys are doing the best they can in an area fraught with extremely strong emotions. I don't practice in this area, but I'd imagine the burnout rate is pretty high.

[Artemis Windsong]

Servant - thanks for doing the correct thing.

I look at it this way. The person who wants out needs to walk away from the assets and rebuild. Men can rebuild quicker and easier than women can.

[Runs to get flame retardant suit.]

[zibazinski]

THAT is what used to happen in divoce with FAULT attached. You could get divorced if you wanted, it just cost you big time and frankly, it should. I am not an advocate of no fault divorce obviously.

[Artemis Windsong]

If the ex makes as much money as you say, his reputation is very valuable for him. A calm, point blank statement of resolve this now or there will be a consequence (don't say what it is). No action, spill your drama in a blog that can be searched would be down and dirty.

On the Today show, one jilted woman posted the drama in a blog, naming names. Three other women goggled their love interest's name and wham, all the info they needed. The four of them got together, brought legal charges; and he ended up in court with some kind of a fraud charge. He'd borrowed $27k from one of the women.

[mookie1]

yes, swamp and daphne, I appreciate your input from the attorney standpoint and completely agree that alot of divorce clients are completely mad!!!! I, like most people going through a divorce, refused to believe that the father of my children would purposely refuse to support them especially when he has a good job but has done everything in his power to keep this information from child support enforcement. I am sure that if the court would actually order him to spend just a little time in jail everything would be resolved at least for some time. So I just cannot fathom why the courts are so lenient on these deatbeats and don't just punish them for their actions. Is it just because the jails are overcrowded and they don't want to waste a bed on a non-support obligor.....any thoughts attorneys?

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Our county jail is overflowing and they regularly release burglars, druggies, car thieves, wife beaters, etc. They certainly wouldn't be keeping non-violent offenders in there ~ no matter how much they owed for non-payment of support. Besides, jailing the person usually gets them fired ... so there's even less likelihood that support gets paid.

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2011 18:31:15 GMT -5 @mookie1 said:

So I just cannot fathom why the courts are so lenient on these deadbeats and don't just punish them for their actions. Is it just because the jails are overcrowded and they don't want to waste a bed on a non-support obligor.....any thoughts attorneys?

Could it also be because they don't want to jeopardize the guy's job? If you're in a job that's respectable enough to make 6 figures and you tell your boss you gotta take off a few days to go to jail for not paying child support, you look pretty bad. I'm sure there are laws against firing someone for that but it would certainly color their feelings next time they were looking for people to promote... or downsize.

I do believe the jails are overcrowded, but they may also feel that if you throw a non-paying parent in jail, they'll lose the job they need to pay the CS.

[Phoenix84]

Truly nice guys also don't go around calling themselves "nice" - they are who they are and just living their lives.

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=finance&action=display&thread=5044&page=2#ixzz1HCsAUdUu

I disagree. So then following your logic, really nice people think they are sleeze bags? What about you, do you think you're nice? If someone thinks they are a jerk, that means they're a jerk, if someone thinks they're nice, it means they're a jerk. An interesting interpretation.....

If you walked up to most people on the street and asked if they were "nice" most would say yes (even the ones who weren't). I doubt there are too many people out there who think they are dirty rotten jerks.

But this topic is outside the scope of the topic at hand.....

[Phoenix84]

am sure that if the court would actually order him to spend just a little time in jail everything would be resolved at least for some time. So I just cannot fathom why the courts are so lenient on these deatbeats and don't just punish them for their actions. Is it just because the jails are overcrowded and they don't want to waste a bed on a non-support obligor.....any thoughts attorneys?

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=finance&thread=5044&page=2#ixzz1HCtlIcCa

I know it's not a popular opinion, but I don't think jailing fathers (and mothers) who refuse to pay child support helps.

First, serving jail time will likely get them fired (in most jobs). That certainly won't help get any more money. If someone is jailed and then fired, how is he or she going to make the CS payments? You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Even if they aren't fired, it can impact other parts of their career and advancement. Even if jail reforms them and they suddenly realize they need to pay CS, how are they going to get a decent job with a criminal record?

Second, I don't find it moral to jail deadbeats. Jailing deadbeat parents is the closest thing we have to debtors prison. If we're going to jail people for not paying their obligations, why don't we jail people who file bankruptcy?

Third, as another post has pointed out, the criminal justice system is already overburdened with more serious criminals. Why jail deadbeats when the prisons are already bursting at the seams with violent offenders?

I think the best way to punish deadbeats is to simply garnish wages.

[cronewitch]

In California, businesses have 20 days from date of hire to report new hires to the state. The state uses this info to check for garnishments of all kinds. The new employer is notified and payroll withholding begins. I think it is a pretty good system.
Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=finance&thread=5044&page=1#200961#ixzz1HDCP0XmI

Washington has a website to report new hires, I don't know how many days because to us it is just part of our hiring process so done before they start working. The payroll clerk just trained on E-Verify so now hiring will take even longer. She might hire a dozen in a day but they usually come early to be hired before work or hire in the day before they start.

[zibazinski]

That's why women must make sure they get more than half in the divorce settlement if they are the ones who gets the kids and have the job skills to support them. There are/were countless non-compliances with my divorce and I learned very quickly after I spent money on attorney fees that he would do what he was supposed to do all the way along AFTER I spent moeny I didn't have on attorney fees trying to get him to comply. After awhile i figured it out and decided the only ones still getting rich off me were the attorneys and i wasn't going there anymore. Anyone getting a divorce? Get what you can get NOW and don't count on ANYTHING post divorce. As far as marriage being antiquated, that's your opinion but it should be harder to get married and almost impossible to get divorced. PERHAPS that would shake things up a bit but not paying welfare moms that have more kids they can't support seems, according to SOME experts, to not stop them having them so what's the point anyway. No fault divorce was the worst thing that happened to women and children.

[Deleted]

Mar 21, 2011 7:29:04 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

That's why women must make sure they get more than half in the divorce settlement if they are the ones who gets the kids and have the job skills to support them. <snip>No fault divorce was the worst thing that happened to women and children.

You have to word this very carefully, and there have to be adequate assets to split. My attorney told me that you cannot waive your kids' right to child support. What we were able to do was propose that I keep all the investments in my name (in theory they could have been split with my Ex) in lieu of CS. (Have I mentioned that I really liked my attorney?) Thank heaven the court and my Ex agreed. It was about $200K at the time, plus the $100K I got from my share of the equity on the house, so it was clear that I had the means to support DS- which I did.

As for no-fault divorce, we do need it. Finding fault just takes more time in court and more attorney fees and drags people through the mud. There are many valid reasons I divorced my Ex, which I've gone through in other posts. They do not need to become part of the public record.

[zibazinski]

Then they agree to it between themselves (and this used to be done even if there was another party involved) and then they go to the judge/lawyers. Just because there had to be "fault" didn't mean that you were the bad guy or bad woman. Everyone knew what the scoop really was but you didn't see too many women and children going without while daddy went on his merry way with a new bimbo. Likewise the guilty woman gave up custody in order to get divorced and that's the way it should be as well. You're bored with your marriage and want out, you can certainly go but you aren't taking the kids or the assets with you.

[Nazgul Girl]

Swamp, I'm not saying that it doesn't cost a certain amount per hour to run an office. However, some of the costs passed onto clients are outrageous. Note: this is my personal opinion. I have worked in legal offices before, although not happily. I'm just saying that repeated legal delays and such push some people who are already emotionally maxed out into a very unstable mental situation, and some react violently. We had a famous murder case around here around 20 years ago where the soon-to-be ex-husband shot and killed his soon-to-be exwife in the elevator of the building on the way up to the court ( this was in the days prior to extremely high security ). That very case was one of the ones that got everyone's briefcases, purses, and such checked each and every time, and in our family court, each elevator has a burly security guard in it.

[Deleted]

Mar 21, 2011 8:16:22 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Everyone knew what the scoop really was but you didn't see too many women and children going without while daddy went on his merry way with a new bimbo. Likewise the guilty woman gave up custody in order to get divorced and that's the way it should be as well. You're bored with your marriage and want out, you can certainly go but you aren't taking the kids or the assets with you.

I asked DH about this since he's 72 and was divorced in the early 1970s. He was very active in Parents Without Parters, so he heard a lot of stories. He says that he thinks it's a culture change, not the switch to no-fault, that has resulted in so many parents not paying CS. In his case, he managed to keep up CS while he was unemployed- he must have been living on credit cards and unemployment. He's one of the few men I'd trust to keep post-divorce promises- but then maybe that's why I have no intention of divorcing him!

And I disagree that the parent who has the affair should lose custody. If a SAHM with a 2-year old wants a divorce so she can marry the UPS guy. it's sad, but what's best for the 2-year old? If Dad has a demanding job and needs to scramble to find daycare during the day (and on business trips), is that best for the child? The courts really do try to focus on the child, and that may mean that the at-fault parent gets custody.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Mar 21, 2011 8:16:22 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Then they agree to it between themselves (and this used to be done even if there was another party involved) and then they go to the judge/lawyers. Just because there had to be "fault" didn't mean that you were the bad guy or bad woman. Everyone knew what the scoop really was but you didn't see too many women and children going without while daddy went on his merry way with a new bimbo. Likewise the guilty woman gave up custody in order to get divorced and that's the way it should be as well. You're bored with your marriage and want out, you can certainly go but you aren't taking the kids or the assets with you.

So whoever is "guilty" is punished by losing custody of the kids, and whoever is not "guilty" is rewarded with custody? Kids are people, not prizes for good behaviour. Custody should be about the best interest of the child, period.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Mar 21, 2011 8:08:03 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

Yes, do we really want "fault" divorce? Do we really want all of our personal crap dragged through the courts? And, how do you find fault with 2 people who simply don't get along other than obvious things like physical abuse?
2 grownups who no longer want to be married can and should be able to decide to dissolve the marriage without having to justify it to some judge.

Exactly right.

[zibazinski]

The best interest of the children is the parent who puts them ahead of themselves. If the non-gulity party does not wish custody, then that is what they decide.

[kdamron]

[So whoever is "guilty" is punished by losing custody of the kids, and whoever is not "guilty" is rewarded with custody? Kids are people, not prizes for good behaviour. Custody should be about the best interest of the child, period.
[/quote]

Exactly!

[zibazinski]

You could get divorced without having it all out there. My mom had friends who did just that before no-fault. The "sensational" ones were few and far between.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Mar 21, 2011 11:18:56 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

The best interest of the children is the parent who puts them ahead of themselves. If the non-gulity party does not wish custody, then that is what they decide.

It's true that a good parent puts their child's needs ahead of their own. It's not true that a child stops needing both parents following divorce. It's also a pretty big assumption that the person who files for divorce is doing so because they are bored with their marriage. I mean, I'm sure it happens, but as a rule of thumb?

[Plain Old Petunia]

Mar 21, 2011 11:39:20 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You could get divorced without having it all out there. My mom had friends who did just that before no-fault. The "sensational" ones were few and far between.

Absolutely you can. And if you do, an outside person might assume that the divorce was due to boredom.

[jarhead1976]

Mar 20, 2011 11:07:57 GMT -5 servant_of_dog said:

No joint property, no kids, gave the ex everything except my chef's knives and whatever clothing fit in two suitcases, and the damn lawyer still forgot to file the motion for divorce with the court. We had to repeatedly contact him to do that before the deadline. All for the low low price of $2400. For 30 min of face-time and some paperwork. I can't imagine how difficult it is for people with so much more at stake.

.......... Servantofdog. This represents a very good point. They get paid up front before the job is done as well. The more people have the more time it takes. They want you to call and ask questions as much as possible. The longer the couple argue the more money they make. A friend that just went through a divorce, $15,000.00. Mookie, one thing you can always do.....Call his lawyer everyday... he gets billed for it.

[KaraBoo]

DH and I fully believe his ex planned on divorcing him after having several kids and once he started making good money. While it doesn't make any sense at all, her actions and comments to him/us over the years bears this theory out. We think she planned on divorcing him, keeping custody of the kids, collecting the maximum child support she could, finding another man to marry/live with who would take care of the majority of living expenses and being a stay at home mom once she had the child support coming in.

About 2 years after their separation/divorce, DH's ex actually called him up and commented to him that her life has not turned out like she had planned. DH thinks she was referring to the fact that her mom had done something similar - married a guy with a good paying job, have several children with him, divorce him, remarry another guy making good money and sit at home while the money rolls in from the ex and current spouse. The plan didn't work out too well for ex's mom either. (side story - about 3 years ago, Ex came to our house (yes! OUR HOUSE!!), sat in our living room, told DH that she still loved him, she didn't know where they had gone so wrong in their marriage but wanted to let him know she was sorry and would he consider getting back together with her!?! They had been divorced for 6-7 years at that point and we had been married for 5!! I couldn't believe him that she actually did that!!)

DH put a kink in several parts of the ex's plans. He didn't want more than 2 children originally and when she didn't agree and got pregnant with their 3rd, he went and got snipped instead of relying on her (ETA - according to him, she originally agreed with him that they would only have 2 and agreed to make the appointment for him to get snipped after the 2nd was born as he was working an insane amount of hours at the time. She didn't do that and she claimed the 3rd pregnancy was an 'Oops'). She wasn't happy about that as she later claimed she wanted more kids. They separated 4 months after 3rd was born when DH discovered she was cheating on him. Before their 3rd child was a year old, ex was already 4 months pregnant with her 4th child by another man. DH was already planning on divorcing her before she began cheating on him, the cheating just sped up the process. She claimed on the 4th's birth certificate she didn't know who the father was, but gave the child DH's last name hoping he would have to pay CS on the 4th child as well (DH made sure that didn't happen). She hooked up with another man that she thought would make tons of money - he ended up smoking it all away in weed. She constantly moved with the 4 kids into whatever family member's house would take her for that month (they moved 6 times in 3 years - the kids were transferred into 4 different school districts during those 6 moves).

DH finally got tired of calling her to say he's on his way to pick the kids up, only to discover they were living in a new location from where he had dropped them off 2 weeks before. Once he hit his breaking point with her, he filed for custody of the kids and won in court. He won mostly because of her constant moves and up-rooting the kids. She lost custody of the 3 kids and CS and blamed me/us for all of her subsequent problems (yes - I just found out recently: she actually said all I care about is money and taking other people's money away from them).

It doesn't happen in all cases, but I believe our court and judge acted in the children's best interest when they gave custody of them over to their dad.

Oh - we wanted to waive the ex paying CS as we knew she wouldn't be able to pay it (voluntary or not). The judge would not allow DH to submit $0, so on advice from our lawyer, DH asked for $50 per month per child = $150 total. Ex hasn't paid anything in over a year and was behind at least a year the last time she was paying. She's had her tax refund seized last year and this year for non-payment. At this point, we're not sure if she'll ever be current. Putting her in jail would only make matters worse due to the 4th child not having anywhere to go if she wasn't taking care of him.

There are no easy solutions, but probably the best would be to know who you are marrying and to make darn sure you want to have kids with them before you actually do.

[zibazinski]

Where can you get a vasectomy without having the wife's consent? I had to get my consent notarized and even then the doctor made us go to 3 sessions before he snipped EXDH.

[swamp]

Nobody asked for DH's permission when I got my tubes tied, and I have lots of male friends who've been snipped, their wives didn't have to consent.

Zib, how many years ago was this?

[KaraBoo]

I asked DH just now and he doesn't remember her having to sign anything. Just that he couldn't get her to make the appointment for him, he finally had to do it himself. She had to drive him there and drive him back due to the anesthesia, but that's all he remembers her having to do.

This was almost 10 years ago at this point for DH.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Nqtykarabo, your dh's ex sounds like a real winner all right. I don't have any sympathy at all for the part where she had an "oops" though, because it takes two to tango. But all the rest, yeah, she has some problems all right. Dh is well rid of her, and the 3 kiddos are doubtless better off with you and dh than with her. That 4th child though seems to be having a rough life.

My son is 15, my ex-h had a vasectomy after his birth, I was not asked to sign anything. Perhaps it varies state to state?

[Wisconsin Beth]

I don't remember if I had to sign off on DH's last year. I'll ask him.

[Wisconsin Beth]

he doesn't remember either!