Jump to content

Menu

Not wanting to risk it


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Right my dh's XW's new husband has always made such a big deal out of that....he says he will NEVER file taxes with his wife for fear of his income being used in some way.  He is an idiot though.  The state we live in would never go after him for his wife's kids support.  He just likes to feel important.  Not sure about your friend.

For my friend it was not so much that she was afraid that she would be financially responsible for the child support, it was that she did not want what she thought was her private information appearing on a joint tax form (her own salary, her own investment income, her social security number, her children's social security numbers, her business income and expenses, etc.) in the hands of the man's ex-spouse.  That made her feel extremely vulnerable.  The state would require the man to provide his tax forms in any case of child support change requests. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I never thought I would be in a place where I could say I understand that reasoning, but now I do. The past 5 years of my marriage have been horrible as I have suffered the consequences emotionally, l

Why not? Maybe the woman has no interest in marriage, either.   Do you think the man is immoral for being in a serious relationship with a woman he doesn’t plan to marry?  I’m trying

You're kind of hitting on the reason, but not really viewing it as logical I think. Because really, it isn't. But it's still the reason. Someone who is burned very badly in a marriage will often say n

Just now, Bootsie said:

For my friend it was not so much that she was afraid that she would be financially responsible for the child support, it was that she did not want what she thought was her private information appearing on a joint tax form (her own salary, her own investment income, her social security number, her children's social security numbers, her business income and expenses, etc.) in the hands of the man's ex-spouse.  That made her feel extremely vulnerable.  The state would require the man to provide his tax forms in any case of child support change requests. 

The judge might look at that information but it would not be given into the hands of an ex wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

The judge might look at that information but it would not be given into the hands of an ex wife.

 

Different jurisdictions, different rules and all, but presumably anything in an affidavit will be seen by both parties as there is a right of reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

The judge might look at that information but it would not be given into the hands of an ex wife.

In my state it is part o the discovery process that the ex-spouse and the ex-spouse's attorney would have in order to prepare documents to provide a request to the judge for an increase in child support. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

Different jurisdictions, different rules and all, but presumably anything in an affidavit will be seen by both parties as there is a right of reply.

 

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

In my state it is part o the discovery process that the ex-spouse and the ex-spouse's attorney would have in order to prepare documents to provide a request to the judge for an increase in child support. 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My ss's step date is so super secretive about his info that he won't even let us have an insurance card for dss.  Over the years I have gathered any and all information about him that I have happened to hear or see and now I can easily get medical care for ds because I know enough details.  The step dad would die if he knew what I know.  It is so silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

 

I know people who have managed to quote confidential documents in their affidavits that the other party wasn't allowed to see because they are confidential documents. 
Experience teaches people not to have faith in justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

I know people who have managed to quote confidential documents in their affidavits that the other party wasn't allowed to see because they are confidential documents. 
Experience teaches people not to have faith in justice.

Well that I can agree with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

There could be a lot of reasons that marriage would be the point of drawing the line.  If there are kids in the mix, perhaps issues of custody and child support and such are involved.  Or, issues of inheritance.  

 

Also from a financial standpoint, divorce can have have a bigger impact than just "simply" breaking off a long term relationship again.  Yes, breaking off a LTR can be quite a financial mess too, but I suspect that in cases like that, divorce would be an even bigger cluster mess.  

 

Plus, lawyers cost money and in most cases, divorce requires one whereas breaking up a LTR does not.

 

Not getting married may not protect a person against being burned again.....but it may be a protection against a specific kind of being burned that comes with a divorce.

 

And, emotionally, I mentioned before how marriage is IMO one of the most serious promises ever.....It may just be that a person doesn't feel that they could EVER make that promise again, even if their feeling of protection from not making it again is false.

 

Also......it could be that a person SAYS they couldn't risk marriage again, but what they are actually saying is they actually don't want to marry that particular person, but don't quite know how to say that politely.

 

 

I don't know, maybe I have just personally witnessed too many situations where the above situations were not avoided because the couple didn't get married. For example divorce requiring a lawyer...okay, there's a difference there, but I've seen a share of  breakups of non-marriage relationships where lawyers end up being involved. So, again, I think it's kind of wishful thinking to "avoid" something like that by not marrying a person, or that you are being risk averse by "only" being in a long term relationship with them (over the course of years).

The last thing you mention is just someone being dishonest with their partner, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I was assuming that the person involved was telling the truth that they didn't want to "risk" getting married with their long term partner.

I get that there are situations where if you remarry you lose some sort of funds (alimony, pension, whatever...), which is why I said 99%. I might be willing to revise that figure down to 95%, maybe. 😄 And, again, I have no problem with people who don't want to get married, I just think it's sort of delusional to say that staying in a LTR without marriage is avoiding the risks that would otherwise be involved with a marriage. I say this as someone who had a close family member break up a LTR before the holidays and tried to pretend that because they weren't married it was just like any other breakup. It just doesn't work that way after 5 or 6 or 10 years.

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

It's not though. That is what we are saying. States are so desperate to extract child support from whatever source they can, they don't give two hoots for the privacy of the third party. Seriously. My brother's ex wife saw all the financial documents without redaction during the process of her requests for more child support. Shouldn't happen, but it absolutely does and in my area, it is not rare. Our courts are entirely screwed up and are run by the Marx Brothers.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know, maybe I have just personally witnessed too many situations where the above situations were not avoided because the couple didn't get married. For example divorce requiring a lawyer...okay, there's a difference there, but I've seen a share of  breakups of non-marriage relationships where lawyers end up being involved. So, again, I think it's kind of wishful thinking to "avoid" something like that by not marrying a person, or that you are being risk averse by "only" being in a long term relationship with them (over the course of years).

The last thing you mention is just someone being dishonest with their partner, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I was assuming that the person involved was telling the truth that they didn't want to "risk" getting married with their long term partner.

I get that there are situations where if you remarry you lose some sort of funds (alimony, pension, whatever...), which is why I said 99%. I might be willing to revise that figure down to 95%, maybe. 😄 And, again, I have no problem with people who don't want to get married, I just think it's sort of delusional to say that staying in a LTR without marriage is avoiding the risks that would otherwise be involved with a marriage. I say this as someone who had a close family member break up a LTR before the holidays and tried to pretend that because they weren't married it was just like any other breakup. It just doesn't work that way after 5 or 6 or 10 years.

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

I think 95% is too high. This is from the office of Social Security. There are numerous individuals who intend on drawing off their ex spouse's social security because the pay out would be higher than drawing their own. This is often the case for women that left the work force to care for children and then divorce. Their life time earnings are lower so drawing off their ex spouse make sense. If they remarry, they can't do that.

The benefits do not include any delayed retirement credits your ex-spouse may receive. If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your formerspouse's record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce, or annulment).
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

It's not though. That is what we are saying. States are so desperate to extract child support from whatever source they can, they don't give two hoots for the privacy of the third party. Seriously. My brother's ex wife saw all the financial documents without redaction during the process of her requests for more child support. Shouldn't happen, but it absolutely does and in my area, it is not rare. Our courts are entirely screwed up and are run by the Marx Brothers.

 

 

Whoa.

Hold on now.

Let’s not insult the Marx Brothers. 😉

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Catwoman said:

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

I agree she should not leave herself unprotected.  But that doesn't change the fact that SOME men are saying one reason for why they don't get married when really they just don't want to.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

I think 95% is too high. This is from the office of Social Security. There are numerous individuals who intend on drawing off their ex spouse's social security because the pay out would be higher than drawing their own. This is often the case for women that left the work force to care for children and then divorce. Their life time earnings are lower so drawing off their ex spouse make sense. If they remarry, they can't do that.

The benefits do not include any delayed retirement credits your ex-spouse may receive. If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your formerspouse's record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce, or annulment).

But she can draw it off of her current or new husband.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scarlett said:

I agree she should not leave herself unprotected.  But that doesn't change the fact that SOME men are saying one reason for why they don't get married when really they just don't want to.

 

 

But don't some women say the exact same thing? And really, the end result is still, “I don’t want to get married,” no matter what reason the person gives. I think the real problem is when a girlfriend or boyfriend doesn’t want to accept that statement, and keeps thinking they will change the person’s mind and make them want to get married. And then, when things don’t work out, they forget that the person told them right from the start that marriage wasn’t in the cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Catwoman said:

 

But don't some women say the exact same thing? And really, the end result is still, “I don’t want to get married,” no matter what reason the person gives. I think the real problem is when a girlfriend or boyfriend doesn’t want to accept that statement, and keeps thinking they will change the person’s mind and make them want to get married. And then, when things don’t work out, they forget that the person told them right from the start that marriage wasn’t in the cards.

Yes I do see a lot of people do that.  I also see a lot of women who are fine with not being married when in years past that was not the case with a majority of people--men and women.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scarlett said:

But she can draw it off of her current or new husband.

If his income isn't as high as her ex's, it is a loss. People see it this way. Seriously. If dh passes, I won't remarry unless said person has had the same income level. The bottom line is I have to provide for myself and years out of the work force means that though I am employed again, my own social security draw is going to be FAR lower. It gets really complicated when you get older. There isn't time to recover from financial disaster like there is when you are in your twenties and thirties so it makes some people a lot more cautious with good reason.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Yes I do see a lot of people do that.  I also see a lot of women who are fine with not being married when in years past that was not the case with a majority of people--men and women.

 

I agree. I basically figure that as long as people are honest with each other and they’re on the same page about things like marriage, it’s all good. I just feel badly when I see situations where one person is obviously lying and stringing the other along. That’s awful.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I agree. I basically figure that as long as people are honest with each other and they’re on the same page about things like marriage, it’s all good. I just feel badly when I see situations where one person is obviously lying and stringing the other along. That’s awful.

Absolutely agreed. I have seen that too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

I suppose, but I don't think it's as simple as blaming oneself. After 5 or 10 years how do you say that she is to blame for making choices for the sake of the relationship both of them are in? Maybe he did ask her, or maybe it was the only real practical choice to make in order to continue the relationship. Maybe it was a mutual decision. And maybe promises are made in all honesty but feelings change. Sussing out blame of who gives up what after the fact is messy because relationships are messy. My point is that marriage has an aspect of legal protection that mitigates a certain amount of risk rather than increasing risk. And it is rare, at least IME, that both parties are coming into a relationship on completely equal footing. Plenty of people are delaying marriage these days in favor of LTRs with and without cohabitation. Relationships that last a long time and involve compromise from one partner or another aren't going to be avoiding a ton of complications by not marrying. If a friend comes to me in that situation I probably wouldn't even think, "Well, she has only herself to blame for being stuck here," because I really think that's not true in most relationships. I rarely think one person is to blame for issues leading to a breakup, minus the obvious caveats of abusive situations.

In a relationship there is going to be vulnerability. There just is. That's part of the point. If someone thinks they are avoiding vulnerability and risk by avoiding marriage, I think they are kidding themselves. There may be some risks that are avoided, but I think they are just trade-offs for different risks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

But the issue is that once marriage takes place, information that was private for one person can become the spouse's information also.  A joint tax return is not simply "his" tax return and "'her" tax return stapled together.  This is the reason why some people, in some situations want to remain unmarried, to keep individual private information individual and private.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

My ss's step date is so super secretive about his info that he won't even let us have an insurance card for dss.  Over the years I have gathered any and all information about him that I have happened to hear or see and now I can easily get medical care for ds because I know enough details.  The step dad would die if he knew what I know.  It is so silly.

 

Devil advocate here:

Why is it silly to not want other people to have his info? 

I mean. Ideally, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a man who behaved that way about my own children. I sure as hell wouldn’t marry him.  BUT I have to admit I think most of the mixed families I know are more like that than not.  I find it baffling and disheartening but I know many women who say things like, “well he isn’t their dad so it’s not his problem”.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. This isn’t his kid and it appears he doesn’t want a parental role and has no legal obligation to provide one - so given that reality - why should he give you any information he deems private?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of a lot more reasons to NOT get married than I can to get married.  I think that 99%/95% is WAY too high.   I think it's more like 60% of the entanglements of marriage happen in a non-marriage relationship, especially if you don't live or have children together.  

And, yes no redaction of spouses information when court papers are filed.  BTDT and in NJ they don't even use a step-parents information in determining child support. 

If something happens to dh, I have no intention of ever remarrying.  He had to work pretty hard to convince me to marry him, and by any measure I got the better deal.  🤣

I do agree that living together can bring on some of the same issues as marriage, but I have no intention of living with anyone else either.  Nope, I want my own space, to make my own decisions, to protect my children and make sure they are provided for, and many of the other reasons that have been mentioned here.  

I could see wanting to date for companionship, but honestly at my age, I'm not sure I'd even do much of that.  

I think more people, especially women, are uninterested in getting married these days because they are more likely to have income and assets of their own so don't need the financial protection the way it was needed in the past.  Plus, when marriages go south, women are often the ones that get the shaft.  If you don't have a religious decree to marry, I can see why more people are giving it a pass.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Devil advocate here:

Why is it silly to not want other people to have his info? 

I mean. Ideally, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a man who behaved that way about my own children. I sure as hell wouldn’t marry him.  BUT I have to admit I think most of the mixed families I know are more like that than not.  I find it baffling and disheartening but I know many women who say things like, “well he isn’t their dad so it’s not his problem”.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. This isn’t his kid and it appears he doesn’t want a parental role and has no legal obligation to provide one - so given that reality - why should he give you any information he deems private?

It's a problem if the child is on his insurance and he won't give that insurance information to the primary custodial parent.

He doesn't care whether or not the child has access to medical care when needed? That is entirely unreasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

 

Is it a person's fault if they are less mature than they need to be?
I know a woman who thinks all men are abusive if you hang around them long enough. Needless to say, she doesn't make any effort to avoid abusive men. She doesn't believe they exist, and would rather one who is abusive right up so she knows what she's dealing with, instead of having to wait for the other shoe to drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Devil advocate here:

Why is it silly to not want other people to have his info? 

I mean. Ideally, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a man who behaved that way about my own children. I sure as hell wouldn’t marry him.  BUT I have to admit I think most of the mixed families I know are more like that than not.  I find it baffling and disheartening but I know many women who say things like, “well he isn’t their dad so it’s not his problem”.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. This isn’t his kid and it appears he doesn’t want a parental role and has no legal obligation to provide one - so given that reality - why should he give you any information he deems private?

He had both boys in his home until 3 years ago when the youngest came to live with us.  He has had them on his insurance since they married 8 years ago. Child support is calculated upon that as a matter of fact.  So I find it insane that he would not give us an Insursnce card.  In fact it was put in the last modification that she had to supply us with one.  She finally sent a picture of it. (And begged us to. To tell her husband she did)  But even still almost every provider will ask for the insureds DOB.  A few ask for more questions than that.  So I guess if you don’t want to provide basic information about yourself you shouldn’t have put the kids on your insurance to start with.  This is particularly irritating to me because dss needed a specialist for YEARS and we had no way to get him to one because we didn’t have access to the insurance info.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

He had both boys in his home until 3 years ago when the youngest came to live with us.  He has had them on his insurance since they married 8 years ago. Child support is calculated upon that as a matter of fact.  So I find it insane that he would not give us an Insursnce card.  In fact it was put in the last modification that she had to supply us with one.  She finally sent a picture of it. (And begged us to. To tell her husband she did)  But even still almost every provider will ask for the insureds DOB.  A few ask for more questions than that.  So I guess if you don’t want to provide basic information about yourself you shouldn’t have put the kids on your insurance to start with.  This is particularly irritating to me because dss needed a specialist for YEARS and we had no way to get him to one because we didn’t have access to the insurance info.  

WOW!

I find it interesting that step kids could even be on his insurance. DH is not eligible to put step children on his. He has to be their father by birth or adoption or legal guardian. Around here marrying someone with kids does not make one the legal guardian of those kids. Really, you don't have any rights when it comes to step children. Different companies, different policies, and of course different states.

If they were on his insurance, as health care access is a matter of well being and often life or death, he should have been compelled to provide the card. Good grief. What a twerp!

That said, on some levels I do understand. He didn't know you; he was probably suspicious of what his wife said about her ex husband. Identity theft is such a big deal these days, and with the kind of info on a health card one could open credit cards in another person's name. My brother's ex did it with info off the child support order when it was upped due to household income increasing, and opened a visa with my brother's new wife's data. She didn't even get in trouble really. Just a slap on the wrist.

It really hurt the boys when it came to college. My brother refused to fill out FASFA because he figured she would some how get his tax return info, and step mom had just gone back to work again. It cost my nephews access to financial aid and most scholarships.

What a world we live in!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

WOW!

I find it interesting that step kids could even be on his insurance. DH is not eligible to put step children on his. He has to be their father by birth or adoption or legal guardian. Around here marrying someone with kids does not make one the legal guardian of those kids. Really, you don't have any rights when it comes to step children. Different companies, different policies, and of course different states.

If they were on his insurance, as health care access is a matter of well being and often life or death, he should have been compelled to provide the card. Good grief. What a twerp!

That said, on some levels I do understand. He didn't know you; he was probably suspicious of what his wife said about her ex husband. Identity theft is such a big deal these days, and with the kind of info on a health card one could open credit cards in another person's name. My brother's ex did it with info off the child support order when it was upped due to household income increasing, and opened a visa with my brother's new wife's data. She didn't even get in trouble really. Just a slap on the wrist.

It really hurt the boys when it came to college. My brother refused to fill out FASFA because he figured she would some how get his tax return info, and step mom had just gone back to work again. It cost my nephews access to financial aid and most scholarships.

What a world we live in!!

I know right. But he is just paranoid in general...and of course as you say he only knows what his wife says about her xh so whatever.  But people who think their info is private are just delusional in general.  Once I took dss to a doctor...before we had the picture of the insurance card....and dss’s Mom had called in the info. As we were filling out paperwork the employee at doctors office came around and sat by me and had the application with all the info on it...and she says....now honey who is this?  I explained it was dss’s step dad....and right there on the form, big as life was the step dads social security number. I giggled inwardly as I committed the number to memory.....and wished so bad I could tell that jack ass I know his social security number.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 5:10 PM, Scarlett said:

My ss's step date is so super secretive about his info that he won't even let us have an insurance card for dss.  Over the years I have gathered any and all information about him that I have happened to hear or see and now I can easily get medical care for ds because I know enough details.  The step dad would die if he knew what I know.  It is so silly.

Why doesn't his own dad have the insurance for his son? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 7:12 PM, maize said:

It's a problem if the child is on his insurance and he won't give that insurance information to the primary custodial parent.

He doesn't care whether or not the child has access to medical care when needed? That is entirely unreasonable.

This is one reason why I can't believe Scarlett's DH doesn't carry the insurance for his son himself. 

Edited by hippiemamato3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Why doesn't his own dad have the insurance for his son? 

Dh didn’t have primary custody of his kids. Nor did he have access to group insurance.  Insurance for his kids was entirely outside of his capabilities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scarlett said:

Do you think anyone can get insurance just because they want to?

Does your family have insurance? Do you and your son? If not, then I guess it makes sense his son didn't have it through your family. But if you DO, then you not covering him is just as bad as his stepdad being uncooperative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Does your family have insurance? Do you and your son? If not, then I guess it makes sense his son didn't have it through your family. But if you DO, then you not covering him is just as bad as his stepdad being uncooperative. 

Our family—obviously is blended.  I lost my insurance when I divorced my xh.    My son continued to be covered by his dad. Shortly after dh got served divorce papers he had a bad accident and a few months later was laid off.  He kept COBRA for his sons as long as he could. But about the time we married COBRA ran out and the rates were not within reach.  At this point she was not re married.  He begged her to put them on state health care for which she very much qualified.  She refused. We tried, but were unable to since she had custody.  

Then she married and put the kids on her new husbands insurance ( he had two kids so added two more cost them. O more money),  we were very glad for that but it was rarely used...as I have described in other places I had to claw and scratch to get dss to the specialists he need to go to.  

Does that answer your questions?

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Our family—obviously is blended.  I lost my insurance when I divorced my xh.    My son continued to be covered by his dad. Shortly after dh got served divorce papers he had a bad accident and a few months later was laid off.  He kept COBRA for his sons as long as he could. But about the time we married COBRA ran out and the rates were not within reach.  At this point she was not re married.  He begged her to put them on state health care for which she very much qualified.  She refused. We tried, but were unable to since she had custody.  

Then she married and put the kids on her new husbands insurance ( he had two kids so added two more cost them. O more money),  we were very glad for that but it was rarely used...as I have described in other places I had to claw and scratch to get dss to the specialists he need to go to.  

Does that answer your questions?

It makes me further horrified that we don't have insurance for everyone in this country. This should never be an issue. Ugh. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 6:17 PM, EmseB said:

I don't know, maybe I have just personally witnessed too many situations where the above situations were not avoided because the couple didn't get married. For example divorce requiring a lawyer...okay, there's a difference there, but I've seen a share of  breakups of non-marriage relationships where lawyers end up being involved. So, again, I think it's kind of wishful thinking to "avoid" something like that by not marrying a person, or that you are being risk averse by "only" being in a long term relationship with them (over the course of years).

The last thing you mention is just someone being dishonest with their partner, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I was assuming that the person involved was telling the truth that they didn't want to "risk" getting married with their long term partner.

I get that there are situations where if you remarry you lose some sort of funds (alimony, pension, whatever...), which is why I said 99%. I might be willing to revise that figure down to 95%, maybe. 😄 And, again, I have no problem with people who don't want to get married, I just think it's sort of delusional to say that staying in a LTR without marriage is avoiding the risks that would otherwise be involved with a marriage. I say this as someone who had a close family member break up a LTR before the holidays and tried to pretend that because they weren't married it was just like any other breakup. It just doesn't work that way after 5 or 6 or 10 years.

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

 

Yes, this is why many places have common law marriage.  The laws around marriage are intended to protect the more vulnerable member from injustice.  And the same problem arises if they are living together without marriage.  Two people living together in the same home, making decisions about employment, etc, you really cannot help but be significantly affected.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this may vary greatly depending on what state you live in. I'm in a community property state and yes, getting married GREATLY complicates matters. Divorcing is MUCH messier financially and legally than just breaking up. Even if you keep separate finances, bank accounts, etc. it doesn't matter, everything is community property - including ANY debt created during the marriage. Hell, the state sent me a letter after my ex husband died saying I could be responsible for his student loans if I don't prove he is dead, because even though we were divorced more than a decade ago, that debt was incurred while we were married so I'm responsible for it!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, my ex and I totally agreed on everything from finances to custody arrangements, but because we were legally married and not just in a relationship were were required to go through court ordered mediation (at our own expense), required to pay all sorts of legal fees to file the paperwork, more fees to have the papers served to my spouse by the sheriff's office, etc etc. It took FOREVER due to the slow and expensive court process, when we'd already agreed on everything and drawn up our own agreement on how finances would be split and what our custody situation would be. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

I think this may vary greatly depending on what state you live in. I'm in a community property state and yes, getting married GREATLY complicates matters. Divorcing is MUCH messier financially and legally than just breaking up. Even if you keep separate finances, bank accounts, etc. it doesn't matter, everything is community property - including ANY debt created during the marriage. Hell, the state sent me a letter after my ex husband died saying I could be responsible for his student loans if I don't prove he is dead, because even though we were divorced more than a decade ago, that debt was incurred while we were married so I'm responsible for it!

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

And yet the quickest way to poverty is for a woman to get a divorce. Not a break up, but a divorce.  Frankly the state screws as many women as it protects.  It's better than it was 100 years ago in some ways, but it's still bad enough that any woman with concerns about financial autonomy safety is smart to give marriage a weary eye.

It very much varies by state how community property is handled. Often community property is more about community debt collections than community division of actual assets.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Except...the reason that stuff becomes community property is so that someone like me (SAHM with no income) doesn't get screwed out of everything not in her name or that she can't prove she earned. "Messier" is a relative term. If my husband and I weren't married, in our current financial situation, I'd absolutely be in a mess if we broke up. And I can think of no relationship where everything can be split perfectly evenly down the middle and/or kept completely separate. How is it not also messy if you aren't married? In the absence of marriage how does all of that stuff get divided up?

This concept is one of the big reasons (if not the big reason) we have state-sanctioned marriage in the first place. Breakups of long-term, family unit-ish relationships usually require a disinterested, objective 3rd party and legal proceedings to sort them out. The fact that someone may or could get stuck with debt unjustly after the fact, I think, is an argument about state law, etc., but I can't imagine avoiding getting married because something like that may happen 10 years into the future.

Sure, and I'm glad I'm married to my now DH. But we were talking about why a man might not want to get married, not why a woman WOULD want to be married. Besides, in my situation with my ex-DH he brought only debt to my life, not assets. He was chronically out of work for various reasons, and didn't even go to class when racking up that student loan debt. I was the breadwinner, not him. So no, it wasn't financially better for me to be married than dating in that scenario. As for how is it less messy if not married - if you keep your finances separate, as even some married couples do, then there is nothing to separate. It's like roommates finding a new place to live, not a divorce. They already have all their assets and debts separate. 

20 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

And yet the quickest way to poverty is for a woman to get a divorce. Not a break up, but a divorce.  Frankly the state screws as many women as it protects.  It's better than it was 100 years ago in some ways, but it's still bad enough that any woman with concerns about financial autonomy safety is smart to give marriage a weary eye.

It very much varies by state how community property is handled. Often community property is more about community debt collections than community division of actual assets.

Yup, that's what it was for me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

I think she's presuming they are shacking up?

Which home ownership would be an issue, but many places these day allow the rental agreement to be in both names.

Honestly, I wonder why prenup agreements have not become far more common than they are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I've seen lawyers involved in a break up without divorce is when kids are involved, it was in fact a common law marriage, and or they bought stuff with both their names on it.

*Purposely* having kids with someone you wouldn't want to be tied to legally is just... well not smart to me.  Kids legally bind you in one way or another to another person for no less than 18 years. And not even divorce changes that most of the time. So the thought process in that decision is just ... confusing to me to say the least.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

But if you weren’t married, why would things need to be divided at all? In a dating relationship, you have your house and your stuff and the other person has their own house and their stuff, and finances are kept separate. 

I thought we were talking about long term cohabiting relationships. Relationships where the only step *not* taken was getting married. I apologize if I misinterpreted what the OP was about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I thought we were talking about long term cohabiting relationships. Relationships where the only step *not* taken was getting married. I apologize if I misinterpreted what the OP was about.

 

Thanks — I was thinking that Scarlett was talking about a guy and his girlfriend, and the guy didn’t want to get married. I wasn’t thinking that they were living together. (If Scarlett mentioned that, I must have missed it, and it wouldn’t be the first time I missed a post! 🙂 )

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

Thanks — I was thinking that Scarlett was talking about a guy and his girlfriend, and the guy didn’t want to get married. I wasn’t thinking that they were living together. (If Scarlett mentioned that, I must have missed it, and it wouldn’t be the first time I missed a post! 🙂 )

I don’t know since it was a comment or two by a stranger but we have talked about all variations of it on this thread.  Either way it comes down to ‘well this person is great, but there is only so much I am willing to do to blend our lives together because the risk is too great.’

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...