Unfairness in divorce

[fairfarmhand]

I think being a stay at home parent should be treated like a job.

 

Having a sahp is tremendously beneficial to the working parent. There is no way many of them would be able to garner the same earning/jobs without one. I know for a fact my dh would have never been able to even hold some of his jobs if he hadn't had a sahp. Many of his coworkers were prime examples. Single/divorced meant they had to rely on daycare. You know who doesn't watch your kids overtime at the drop of the hat so you can impress your boss? Daycares. You know who you cannot just assume will watch your kids weekends and nights? Day cares. You know who doesn't watch your kids when they are sick and you can't call in to work? Daycare. You know who doesn't change their bus schedule to work with your work schedule? Any school system.

 

I don't care if it is mom or dad, if either choose to help the family by staying home, I think it should be viewed with at least as much respect as a daycare job, unpaid though it is.

 

 

 

One thing I love about my dh's co workers, is that they really really really appreciate what I do. They know that my dh would be much less effective at his job were I in the work force as well. They know that I work very hard and enable him to work very hard.

[Frances]

Wouldn't that assume that most carry on with the unwanted pregnancy? I believe about 40% are aborted.

No, whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term does not change the rate of unplanned (or unintended pregnancies). The rate of unintended births is lower than the rate of unintended pregnancies, and abortion definitely contributes to that.

[LucyStoner]

I agree, that totally makes sense. Each parent can get a 6 month lease on a small place since it is just for one person. No need to keep kid's bedrooms at two places that are unused for half the year.

I knew a couple who divorced amicably and left the house set up as it was and simply bought a small condo nearby. The parents alternated weeks in the house with the kids, each staying in the condo when it wasn't their week to be with the kids in the house. I think each parent had their own bedroom both places. Obviously though, that was a very amicable situation and there were zero control or DV issues. Such an arrangment wouldn't be ok for a DV situation. When the kids were finishing high school, they sold the house and the condo and used half the equity to fund college and a small trust fund for each child, with each parent taking 1/4 for themselves to use towards moving into totally seperate places.

Edited January 29, 2016 by LucyStoner

[kiwik]

Totally ignorant here but how would the insurance co know about your gene thing? When DH and I got ours, we did do blood and urine tests, but no genetic testing. If I want genetic testing is have to pay for it myself.

Full disclosure is required for any insurance. It is possible that if i had insurance before i got tested it would have been OK but at the time childcare bill took up all my money.

 

They don't ask for blood or urine tests here but they do expect you to be upfront about existing conditions. Having a 70% chance of breast cancer counts as a pre-existing condition.

Edited January 30, 2016 by kiwik

[kiwik]

And yet as the kid shuttled back and forth for years on end I admit that kind of solution makes me smirk - if they want to split why should *my* home be uprooted?

 

As an adult I can see what a headache that would be, but it seems more fair than swapping the kid around since they aren't the one ending any relationships.

 

Hm.

Well if the couple also shared a one room place nearby it would seem quite a good solution.

[Bluegoat]

No, whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term does not change the rate of unplanned (or unintended pregnancies). The rate of unintended births is lower than the rate of unintended pregnancies, and abortion definitely contributes to that.

 

Ok, I thought you were talking about the rate of unintended births that is what I get for reading too fast.

 

THis is the closest thing I found googling - I won't vouch for its reliability, and I don't know if it sheds any light.

[Guest]

I knew a couple who divorced amicably and left the house set up as it was and simply bought a small condo nearby. The parents alternated weeks in the house with the kids, each staying in the condo when it wasn't their week to be with the kids in the house. I think each parent had their own bedroom both places. Obviously though, that was a very amicable situation and there were zero control or DV issues. Such an arrangment wouldn't be ok for a DV situation. When the kids were finishing high school, they sold the house and the condo and used half the equity to fund college and a small trust fund for each child, with each parent taking 1/4 for themselves to use towards moving into totally seperate places.

That was the plan in my friend's divorce. Guess who has 2 weeks to find a home for herself and her kids?? And the judge was just fine with that.

[LucyStoner]

That was the plan in my friend's divorce. Guess who has 2 weeks to find a home for herself and her kids?? And the judge was just fine with that.

Sounds like she married a real winner (/sarcasm)

 

I'm sorry she got jacked around.

[Guest]

Sounds like she married a real winner (/sarcasm)

 

I'm sorry she got jacked around.

Yes, and the divorce is showing that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, iykwim. Which is usually the case. My SIL's biggest enemy became her in-laws with lots of money and time.

[Frances]

Ok, I thought you were talking about the rate of unintended births that is what I get for reading too fast.

 

THis is the closest thing I found googling - I won't vouch for its reliability, and I don't know if it sheds any light.

Thanks for the link, the graphs were interesting. I actually agreed with your initial statements about the odds of unintended pregnancy looking different over the long term compared to the odds for one year. But I was questioning the 5 year statistic mentioned by another poster. If I'm interpreting the graphs correctly, that statistic could only possibly be true if the vast majority of women are using the least effective methods (e.g. withdrawal, condom, etc).

[Bluegoat]

Thanks for the link, the graphs were interesting. I actually agreed with your initial statements about the odds of unintended pregnancy looking different over the long term compared to the odds for one year. But I was questioning the 5 year statistic mentioned by another poster. If I'm interpreting the graphs correctly, that statistic could only possibly be true if the vast majority of women are using the least effective methods (e.g. withdrawal, condom, etc).

 

THat doesn't seem all that likely, does it?

[frogger]

I hear stories like this but I always feel like there is more to the story.

 

I think that is your bias in play. I have seen men get the worse end of the stick more often than women. It depends on the judge and how good of speaker a spouse is or who hired the best lawyer. I'm actually very surprised that so many have seen the opposite. Women seem to play the I'm weak, feel bad for me card even if they cheated, never worked (even if kids went to school and preschool) etc and get everything including a big alimony check. Where I live only the person getting the alimony (almost always the woman) can ask for a review. If a guy loses his job and gets a hefty pay cut he still has to keep paying the same amount regardless of what percentage of his check it is. Imagine paying the majority of your check in alimony while trying to raise the kids on your own and paying child care on a smaller check than you used to have.

 

Some of it may depend on the culture and laws but a lot just depends on who is willing to stoop lower and is better at working the system to their own advantage.

[Danestress]

Yes and many family attorneys want a retainer up front.

Yes. Of course they do. When I was practicing family law, I told potential clients that they might try to find a family member to lend them money for a retainer, put the fees on a credit card, or take out a loan. But they did not want their attorney to be the person lending them money, which is essentially what happens when you work for free based on someone telling they will pay you back. It complicates family relationships and friendships to loan money, and it can complicate professional relationships too.

 

Once the upfront payment was depleted, I often had clients who struggled to pay additional fees, I would work with that. We often ended up writing off a portion of the fee or letting people pay over time. But I needed to have clients pay something upfront. Sometimes I took cases pro bono, but only through our local bar. It's not that I refused to work for free (I am a Mom, after all!) but that I want to have agreed to that.

 

It's a terrible thing to have a client who is going to pay you "someday" but is insistent on waging fruitless, time consuming battles over petty things as a matter of 'principle.' A reasonable person can recognize you don't want to run up $2,000 in legal fees fighting about a $400 dumbbell set. But a person who isn't really paying the legal bills anyway starts to not be concerned about that.

 

On a different note, I think taking turns living in a home with the kids is the worst idea ever. It makes sense for some people for a short while after separation when the parties are working out their plans. But a year in, she's upset that he has had women over, he's snooping in her belongings, and someone's upset about the other not deep cleaning. When people are getting divorced, they generally need to get their lives untangled from each other. If they share kids, they will be part of each other's lives for a long time. But do you really want to be arguing about who has to fix the leaking toilet, whether to get the cheaper or luxury counters installed, and who spilled coffee on the carpet three years after your divorce. Do you want to be on the insurance together? Negotiate for major repairs? Continue to own joint asset? In my mind, it's usually better to get the issues resolved and untangled so that life is structured to minimize conflicts.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Danestress

[Danestress]

Nm

Edited January 31, 2016 by Danestress

[Scarlett]

Yes. Of course they do. When I was practicing family law, I told potential clients that they might try to find a family member to lend them money for a retainer, put the fees on a credit card, or take out a loan. But they did not want their attorney to be the person lending them money, which is essentially what happens when you work for free based on someone telling they will pay you back. It complicates family relationships and friendships to loan money, and it can complicate professional relationships too.

 

Once the upfront payment was depleted, I often had clients who struggled to pay additional fees, I would work with that. We often ended up writing off a portion of the fee or letting people pay overtime. But I needed to have clients pay something upfront. Sometimes I took cases pro bono, but only through our local bar. It's not that I refused to work for free (I am a Mom, after all,!) but that I want to have agreed to that.

 

It's a terrible thing to have a client who is going to pay you "someday" but is insistent on waging fruitless, time consuming battles over petty things as a matter of 'principle.' A reasonable person can recognize you don't want to run up $2,000 in legal fees fighting about a $400 dumbbell set. But a person who isn't really paying the legal bills anyway starts to not be concerned about that.

 

On a different note, I think taking turns living in a home with the kids is the worst idea ever. It makes sense for some people for a short while after separation when the parties are working out their plans. But a year in, she's upset that he has had women over, he's snooping in her belongings, and someone's upset about the other not deep cleaning. When people are getting divorced, they generally need to get their lives untangled from each other. If they share kids, they will be part of each other's lives for a long time. But do you really want to be arguing about who has to fix the leaking toilet, whether to get the cheaper or luxury counters installed, and who spilled coffee on the carpet three years after your divorce. Do you want to be on the insurance together, negotiate for major repairs? Continue to own joint asset? In my mind, it's usually better to get the issues resolved and untangled so that life is structured to minimize conflicts.

Yes, takng turns living with the kids and another residence is the height of insanity to me. Two people who could pull that off should not be getting divorced anyway. My Xh bought me out of the family home and as soon as I moved out and the Other Woman was there often. I have never stepped inside that house since the day I moved out almost 6 years ago...I cannot imagine sleeping there part time while he goes off to my house to be with our son.

[goldberry]

Full disclosure is required for any insurance. It is possible that if i had insurance before i got tested it would have been OK but at the time childcare bill took up all my money.

 

They don't ask for blood or urine tests here but they do expect you to be upfront about existing conditions. Having a 70% chance of breast cancer counts as a pre-existing condition.

 

Wow, that makes me not want to ever get genetic testing.

[Murphy101]

THat doesn't seem all that likely, does it?

It's actually VERY likely. Few women are attracted to the idea of putting metal and plastic objects inside their bodies for years. Or implanting chemical hormones or getting shots. These might be more effective, but they also have more drawbacks and the complications are more difficult to deal with when they occur. Many women prefer to avoid them for those reasons.

[Bluegoat]

It's actually VERY likely. Few women are attracted to the idea of putting metal and plastic objects inside their bodies for years. Or implanting chemical hormones or getting shots. These might be more effective, but they also have more drawbacks and the complications are more difficult to deal with when they occur. Many women prefer to avoid them for those reasons.

 

That might be how you feel about it, but the statistics don't really support it.  In the US, the pill and tubal ligation account for about 50% of users, IUDs about 10%, and vasectomy about 8%.  The only hightly popular method that is less effective is the male condom.  All the other methods represent less than 5% of users each, less than 20% altogether.

[Frances]

It's actually VERY likely. Few women are attracted to the idea of putting metal and plastic objects inside their bodies for years. Or implanting chemical hormones or getting shots. These might be more effective, but they also have more drawbacks and the complications are more difficult to deal with when they occur. Many women prefer to avoid them for those reasons.

A quick google search will show that actual statistics do not support this claim.

[Murphy101]

That might be how you feel about it, but the statistics don't really support it. In the US, the pill and tubal ligation account for about 50% of users, IUDs about 10%, and vasectomy about 8%. The only hightly popular method that is less effective is the male condom. All the other methods represent less than 5% of users each, less than 20% altogether.

The pill is not considered LARC. So in order to support your theory, you would have to seperate out uses into two groups. Group A with LARCs used over a 5 year or longer time period such as and IUD And implanted hormones from Group B with birth control pills, injections, and all barrier methods used over a 5 year or more period.

 

It's not about how I feel. I don't use anything ever so I don't have any feeling for any of them.

 

It's simple numbers of who uses what specificly for LARC.

 

eta: removed tubal ligation. LARC = long acting reversible contraception

Edited February 1, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

The CDC does note use of LARCs is going up, but it is still VERY low. Less than 10%

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db188.pdf

[madteaparty]

Full disclosure is required for any insurance. It is possible that if i had insurance before i got tested it would have been OK but at the time childcare bill took up all my money.

 

They don't ask for blood or urine tests here but they do expect you to be upfront about existing conditions. Having a 70% chance of breast cancer counts as a pre-existing condition.

I'm so sorry about this, and a little bit angry that you are penalized, insurance-wise, for testing and knowing. I mean, I don't think they did genetic testing on the blood they took from me. i could have who knows what gene but I can't disclose what I don't know. Sucks that a test you paid on your dime is used against you.

[Frances]

The pill is not considered LARC. So in order to support your theory, you would have to seperate out uses into two groups. Group A with LARCs used over a 5 year or longer time period such as and IUD And implanted hormones from Group B with birth control pills, injections, and all barrier methods used over a 5 year or more period.

 

It's not about how I feel. I don't use anything ever so I don't have any feeling for any of them.

 

It's simple numbers of who uses what specificly for LARC.

 

eta: removed tubal ligation. LARC = long acting reversible contraception

We're not just talking about LARC. In order to support your initial claim about unintended pregnancy rates over five year periods, the vast majority of women would have to be using condoms and other even less effective methods. Only those methods have such high failure rates with normal usage over five years. Statistics show that is not remotely true.

[Bluegoat]

The pill is not considered LARC. So in order to support your theory, you would have to seperate out uses into two groups. Group A with LARCs used over a 5 year or longer time period such as and IUD And implanted hormones from Group B with birth control pills, injections, and all barrier methods used over a 5 year or more period.

 

It's not about how I feel. I don't use anything ever so I don't have any feeling for any of them.

 

It's simple numbers of who uses what specificly for LARC.

 

eta: removed tubal ligation. LARC = long acting reversible contraception

 

Yeah, I don't really know what this has to do with what we were talking about?

[Cammie]

Yes. Of course they do. When I was practicing family law, I told potential clients that they might try to find a family member to lend them money for a retainer, put the fees on a credit card, or take out a loan. But they did not want their attorney to be the person lending them money, which is essentially what happens when you work for free based on someone telling they will pay you back. It complicates family relationships and friendships to loan money, and it can complicate professional relationships too.

 

Once the upfront payment was depleted, I often had clients who struggled to pay additional fees, I would work with that. We often ended up writing off a portion of the fee or letting people pay over time. But I needed to have clients pay something upfront. Sometimes I took cases pro bono, but only through our local bar. It's not that I refused to work for free (I am a Mom, after all!) but that I want to have agreed to that.

 

It's a terrible thing to have a client who is going to pay you "someday" but is insistent on waging fruitless, time consuming battles over petty things as a matter of 'principle.' A reasonable person can recognize you don't want to run up $2,000 in legal fees fighting about a $400 dumbbell set. But a person who isn't really paying the legal bills anyway starts to not be concerned about that.

 

 

I wonder how people think divorce attorneys should be paid?

 

In my state you cannot take a divorce on a contingent basis (getting a percentage of the "winnings") like you can a personal injury case.

 

A lawyer cannot also lend money or get financially entangled with a client.

 

A hefty up front retainer makes sure that the lawyer is compensated, and makes sure the client knows the cost of the battles they want to wage.

 

Often the party with greater income can be required to pay the other party's attorney fees at the end of the divorce.

 

I cannot even begin to tell you how many cases I have been a part of that was the lawyer collecting fees owed from divorce clients.

[Scarlett]

I wonder how people think divorce attorneys should be paid?

 

In my state you cannot take a divorce on a contingent basis (getting a percentage of the "winnings") like you can a personal injury case.

 

A lawyer cannot also lend money or get financially entangled with a client.

 

A hefty up front retainer makes sure that the lawyer is compensated, and makes sure the client knows the cost of the battles they want to wage.

 

Often the party with greater income can be required to pay the other party's attorney fees at the end of the divorce.

 

I cannot even begin to tell you how many cases I have been a part of that was the lawyer collecting fees owed from divorce clients.

I certainly believe attorneys should be paid. I am on a marriage board and we strongly advise people who come there in the middle of a divorce to get an attorney. When they say there are no funds we tell them to borrow or beg someone for funds. it is almost always that important especially with kids involved.

 

I lucked out.....I contacted my attorney...one of the best divorce attorneys in my then city...in with another big name attorney...and he took my case for a $500 retainer. I have since learned that is a very low retainer. In the end I paid him about $5000 total, of which $1500 was paid by my Xh by order of the court.

 

He was a good attorney. However, I was on top of things the entire time. I know I was a pain to him but I knew what was important to me. Xh and I negotiated the custody and visitation on our own. Property settlement went to court. Judge settled a few things, gave me alimony, but he refused to rule on our home which had significant equity in it. It took 6 more months after our divorce date before the house issue was settled and I did the work on it. My attorney wanted me to roll over and sell the house to Xh for the amount he wanted which turned out to be 40k less than the full price offer we eventually got.

 

During all the stunts Xh pulled during that 6 months (refusing to sign listing offer, getting a shady appraiser to undervalue it, refusing to counter offer on offers,) my attorney told me to keep all the correspondence and if Xh cost us the sale we would go after him for the difference.

 

If I had left all of that up to my attorney I would have been screwed.

 

And that is what Dh did. He trusted his first attorney who wrote up the most ridiculous and unworkable visitation schedule ever. 5 years later we give another attorney ( who came highly recommend and who was in a big downtown fancy building) $2500 retainer to fix the visitation schedule and to address some other issues...like xw wouldn't give Dh insurance info for the boys, her New husband jumped out of his vehicle periodically at exchanges to cause problems, xw wouldn't take Dss to a specialist he needed and we couldn't because she wouldn't give us the insurance info and a few more issues that I can't think of right now). Anyway, we went to mediation which cost us another $500 ( not counting attorney time) and they hashed out some things.

 

Dh went by his attorney's office a few weeks later to sign off on what was being sent to the judge. He didn't take me with him. He didn't come home with a copy. Turns out it was another huge mess and waste of time because the very specific issues were still not addressed. We have basically just bluffed xw that what she agreed to in mediation is in the papers....and so far it is working because I guess she did to bother to read the papers just as Dh didn't.

 

All of this to say, yes you need an attorney. But you have to be your own advocate and educate yourself on your rights and read before you agree and sign and follow through on details,

[G5052]

All of this to say, yes you need an attorney. But you have to be your own advocate and educate yourself on your rights and read before you agree and sign and follow through on details,

 

Always true in the legal realm. I'm executor of an estate and have three lawyers working on multiple issues. Two can be trusted to be on top of things. The other one gets busy and has to be prodded. He's a good mediator and litigator, but frankly has too many cases.

[OnMyOwn]

I watched Divorce Corp on Netflix last year. It was quite eye opening as to the corruption that is rampant in this area of our legal system. It reaffirmed my thoughts about the attorneys and judges that handled my sister's divorce case. She walked away okay because she still had her children, though beaten down and bankrupt. It is terrifying to go before a family court judge. They have almost unlimited power -- think of the case of the children who were sent to juvenile detention because they didn't want to see their dad.

[Janeway]

Ugh. Watching a friend get divorced is eye-opening. The law has zero respect for the work of a SAH spouse. It has made me realize what a precarious situation I live in (my marriage is great but you never know). If DH left me, I'd get half of a house with not much equity and part of an underfunded 401k. He'd be better than fine because he would no longer be paying on my student loans. I'd need to find a new house and a career. He would just need childcare.

Long ago, I thought we were getting divorced so I did a married student consolidation on our student loans. He would have been stuck with the payments basically as a result. Problem is, we never divorced and because they are consolidated, I no longer qualified for deferment. That part sucks big time.

[Joanne]

My observations, opinions, and experiences on the topic:

 

No one other than the attornies, mediators, ad litems, and judges benefit from the divorce process.

 

If "God hates divorce," God should hate the marriage that made the divorce an option.

 

"Divorce is not an option" killed my soul. It was a big part of killing my religion.

 

It takes 2 to make a thriving marriage. It only takes one to ruin it.

 

It takes 2 to have a "as healthy as possible" divorce. It only takes one to be a barrier to that.

 

Moving into an intimate and disclosed to the children relationship in the first year(S) after the divorce is not usually a good thing.

 

I used to believe "where there is smoke, there is fire." I don't anymore. In the family law system, one party can make something out of - literally - nothing.

 

Protracted family law battles can have negative influence for decades. I'm giving mine a decade for each $10k it costs. I will die before it is paid.

 

The "hard" of my life post (1st) divorce is STILL BETTER than the hell of that marriage. I do wish differently for my kids. Hopefully I can save enough to pay for their therapy.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Joanne

[Seasider]

Sounds like she married a real winner (/sarcasm)

 

I'm sorry she got jacked around.

Well the xh in the case mentioned sounds unreasonable, but for the setup to work, both parents probably would not be able to remarry. Unless the new spouse(s) didn't mind shuffling from home to home or having a "traveling" spouse.

[LucyStoner]

Well the xh in the case mentioned sounds unreasonable, but for the setup to work, both parents probably would not be able to remarry. Unless the new spouse(s) didn't mind shuffling from home to home or having a "traveling" spouse.

In the immediate wake of a divorce where there are children involved, the children's need for stability trumps the parents getting involved with other people.

 

I'm definitely not saying divorced people shouldn't remarry but it's generally a crappy idea if done right away. People often rush into another serious relationship and I rarely see that working out for anyone in the family.

[Katy]

:zombie: