Is it wrong/ok to leave someone if.......
Replies
-
If you have to even ask this question, you should go ahead and leave.Is it wrong/ok to leave someone if they don't want to get married or have anymore kids?
Break down: 6 1/2 years together and 4 1/2 year old
Im 25 (26 in February) he 300 -
You're exhausting. Ok, you win, mom made that choice entirely on her own, no input from dad and should totally suffer the consequences...evil b*tch. Kids are better off with dad who works full time and mom was just a vessel to get them into this world. Who needs her? There, happy?
Doesn't matter how much or how little input dad had, it was still her choice, and I still just can't see the logic behind the gigantic leap from that choice to alimony plus half his money/property.
So if kids are not better off with dad who works full time and can afford to support them, then you think they should be with mom and she shouldn't work? Because she has a womb she should get alimony plus half his money/property? Because she has a womb she would obviously be the better parent?
So dad should be punished because he works, makes money, and doesn't have a womb?
Every situation is different
As we all know too well when the government gets involved in anything they use a broadsword approach and not a scalpel.
With alimony the letter of the law states the "less employed"party is entitled to be compensated to the life he/she has become accustomed to. The determination made by a family judge. there are almost infinite complexities to each case.
Child support is ruled again by determining each parties monetary position and a very simplistic formula is worked out unless the parties agree on something separate from each states broad based laws.
Fair or unfair....right or wrong..... its the world we live in....is it a good system? No, of course not...it has gaping holes....But until they are fixed when we get involved in these things it is what we deal with.0 -
What?? You people are crazy!! You should absolutely leave him! If I understand the post, you have been together 6.5 years and aren't married, but you have a 4 year old. If you aren't married yet, then why stay in the commitment?? You can do bad by yourself. You have already made the mistake of giving him the milk without making him buy the cow so he is complacent and doesn't have to fully commit.
My boyfriend and I have been together over 7 years and are not married, by choice. We are more committed to each other than many people who are married. Rings, a ceremony, and a certificate do not make commitment. The people in the relationship do.0 -
You're exhausting. Ok, you win, mom made that choice entirely on her own, no input from dad and should totally suffer the consequences...evil b*tch. Kids are better off with dad who works full time and mom was just a vessel to get them into this world. Who needs her? There, happy?
Doesn't matter how much or how little input dad had, it was still her choice, and I still just can't see the logic behind the gigantic leap from that choice to alimony plus half his money/property.
So if kids are not better off with dad who works full time and can afford to support them, then you think they should be with mom and she shouldn't work? Because she has a womb she should get alimony plus half his money/property? Because she has a womb she would obviously be the better parent?
So dad should be punished because he works, makes money, and doesn't have a womb?
Every situation is different
As we all know too well when the government gets involved in anything they use a broadsword approach and not a scalpel.
With alimony the letter of the law states the "less employed"party is entitled to be compensated to the life he/she has become accustomed to. The determination made by a family judge. there are almost infinite complexities to each case.
Child support is ruled again by determining each parties monetary position and a very simplistic formula is worked out unless the parties agree on something separate from each states broad based laws.
Fair or unfair....right or wrong..... its the world we live in....is it a good system? No, of course not...it has gaping holes....But until they are fixed when we get involved in these things it is what we deal with.
Cannot disagree with a single word there. However you make a very good case for a prenup and working together with your partner to make other legally binding arrangements before there is a problem, so you get to make these decisions and not a judge or standards of a flawed system.0 -
Unbelievably presumptious.
A marriage certificate does protect women from the unscrupulous behaviour of abusive and controlling men. Plenty of these men would be happy to walk off into the sunset with all the money and all the property without a second thought for the wife and kids. And enjoy the power trip of being 'one up' too!
Yeah, I don't know any women like that. Oh wait, I meant to say, I wish I didn't know any women like that.0 -
Not at all. You need to truly be happy.0
-
back in the day you didnt throw anything away, you fixed it. It seems a lot of people think that the grass is greener on the other side. Its always green over a septic tank :laugh:
Ours is dead, what does this mean?0 -
OP it seems like (from the first page that I have read), that you know what you want. Why do you need our answers/approval? My biggest question is why did you have a kid with this person?
no answers or approval, what i was looking for was more some advice and point of views!! Im known to overreact sometimes.
it was an accident...and yes we was using protection!!0 -
You're exhausting. Ok, you win, mom made that choice entirely on her own, no input from dad and should totally suffer the consequences...evil b*tch. Kids are better off with dad who works full time and mom was just a vessel to get them into this world. Who needs her? There, happy?
Doesn't matter how much or how little input dad had, it was still her choice, and I still just can't see the logic behind the gigantic leap from that choice to alimony plus half his money/property.
So if kids are not better off with dad who works full time and can afford to support them, then you think they should be with mom and she shouldn't work? Because she has a womb she should get alimony plus half his money/property? Because she has a womb she would obviously be the better parent?
So dad should be punished because he works, makes money, and doesn't have a womb?
Every situation is different
As we all know too well when the government gets involved in anything they use a broadsword approach and not a scalpel.
With alimony the letter of the law states the "less employed"party is entitled to be compensated to the life he/she has become accustomed to. The determination made by a family judge. there are almost infinite complexities to each case.
Child support is ruled again by determining each parties monetary position and a very simplistic formula is worked out unless the parties agree on something separate from each states broad based laws.
Fair or unfair....right or wrong..... its the world we live in....is it a good system? No, of course not...it has gaping holes....But until they are fixed when we get involved in these things it is what we deal with.
Cannot disagree with a single word there. However you make a very good case for a prenup and working together with your partner to make other legally binding arrangements before there is a problem, so you get to make these decisions and not a judge or standards of a flawed system.
Agreed...
In defense of the unemployed mother who the ex husband supports....many times the husband didnt even let or want his wife to work so she has no job skills or really anything employable. So after 10 or 20+ years of being a housewife a divorce comes and then she is out on her butt with absolutely no skill set, older, with kids, etc etc.... She absolutely NEEDS assistance or her life and the possible well being of her kids is destroyed
A prenup could possibly address this and if the couple decided that they would both be employed and take equal amounts if there were to be a divorce than the onus is on themselves for what happens.
Either way there absolutely needs to be legal protection for both parties and the kids. If the parents didnt do it themselves then unfortunately they rely on the heavy handed blunt fist of the legal system to do it for them.0 -
Didn’t expect this at all, didn’t expect it to go all the way left and turn into legal thing!!… BUT all you guys made valid points, both sides. Some of you gave me EXCELLENT advice! So like someone said on here, I let him read some of your advices, Good or bad, from the woman and the men, older to younger. Let me clarify some things before I tell you my decision. My man is a wonderful, caring, hardworking, amazing father and man. He has his issues when it came to the “boyfriend” roll, but he changed for me the best way he could with our changing “himself”. The reason I posted this because I don’t have anyone to ask this question, I was wondering if I was over reacting, if I was right, was I communication enough and everything in between. I know posting on here I would get advice from every type of person, not just woman! I wanted to know other peoples views on this. I’m happy with him, very happy on what I have with him. I just was wondering if I was being selfish to leave him just because of what I THOUGHT his wants where! But thanks from some of your advice and personal messages, a lot has opened up and I do want to thank all of you, even the rude ones lol. I did have to push a little to get an answer but glad I did because I got some real answers. Like I said before, he has an issue with marriage, tons of family member have divorced through out the years. So I was telling him, that I would LOVE to walk down the aisle on our 10-year anniversary (05/19/17). He said he could do that, he thought if we get engaged, then we have to get married right away. I told him no, I want to be engaged for a little bit and then go from there. He said that’s understandable AND doable (didn’t expect that). Kids, he said he doesn’t want to raise another child of ours in an apartment, it’s to tight for the 3 of us, if you add another then its just ridiculous. So he said when we get a house, and if I really want another kid, then hell give that to me! He did add, as long as we aren’t struggling, then its possible. I said, ok THAT’S doable for me. We are now supposed to go house hunting next summer.
Reading all you’ll post and comments about money and kids and starting over with another kid made me realize that having another kid is NOT necessary but marriage is, and if its about compromising, then I say having a ring is more important then having another kid. I’m still young and learning and sometimes you think you want something and it can change overnight! I’m glad I post this up because I got more great advice in this post then I have in my whole life!! My decsion is to but my child 1st and I thought about how miserable he would be with out us both under the same roof and that KILLED ME. He said marriage is NOW in our future and POSSIBLE another child. Like some one said why would I leave something I know, to someone I dont know nothing about! You guys are amazing and thank you for helping me
-CHRISTINA
repost this, just incase you didnt see it!!0 -
But FYI, it's not just "his" property
If he bought it, with his money, and it's in his name... then yes by every conceivable and reasonable definition it is absolutely his property.
Even if he charged her room and board for living in his home, purchased during the marriage, it wouldn't equal the cost he'd then owe her for caring for his children. Child care, transportation, cooking, and cleaning add up.
That's why property purchased as a couple in a marriage is split. Property either bought beforehand is different.
It would be better if couples designed legal contracts for themselves before marriage to cover this rather than having the courts make the final decision. If I got divorced now, I would not see any need for alimony and wouldn't be entitled to it-we make the same amount of money and both work full-time. If he had a better job than I did, I still wouldn't see a need for alimony, because I can get by and didn't sacrifice my own education or work history to put him through college and raise children as a full-time SAHM. Once our marriage is over, there's no reason for me to assume that our standards of living will match. (Of course, property and debt we accrued together is a 50/50.)
However, other couples do it a different way. Person A and Person B agree that there is only enough money for one to go to school, and they mutually agree that person will be Person A and the other will take care of the home and raise the kids. (Don't assume it's only one gender role on that one-there are men and women happy to have the dad stay at home. I think my partner would be the better parent, for instance.) Person A goes to school, gets a job, and they purchase property to support the family. Person A is supporting the family financially (directly) but Person B is providing nurture and contributing financially indirectly by not having to outsource this to others. Time goes by and they grow tired of each other and want a divorce. The decisions listed above were mutual. Do I think Person A needs to care for Person B indefinitely? No, but I do think a reasonable amount of time for Person B to get on their feet is just that, reasonable. Because the couple agreed on that and make all sorts of contracts to each other by doing so, even if not done formally. (Technically, with the current laws being what they are, they did make that contract formally.)
I'd have no issue with couples designing their own contracts and updating them as needed. But calling it "his property and money" when they made family decisions while married in a contract is pretty off-base. Marriage is about meeting the needs of each other, sometimes sacrificing for each other. To then say that everything done financially is one-sided is pretty unfair. Unless you want consider the children HER children, made with her own body and supported with her own breasts and love and time, and not give him access to the children fair. (Or vice versa if he's a SAHD-they are then HIS children because he was the one caring for them. But wait-her body. Oh, no, how do we decide and make it fair now?)0 -
back in the day you didnt throw anything away, you fixed it. It seems a lot of people think that the grass is greener on the other side. Its always green over a septic tank :laugh:
You can't "fix" having completely different values, fundamentally.. It's a pretty huge dealbreaker when one person wants kids, and the other person doesn't.
There's nothing to fix in that situation. If one person bends so the other person gets what they want, they'll end up bitter and resenting him/her for it in the long run.
Yes, thank you! Perfectly said!!
Based on this, you've made your decision and are looking for validation? This is not a decision which should be made by seeking advice from strangers. Good luck whatever path you choose.0 -
Is it wrong/ok to leave someone if they don't want to get married or have anymore kids?
Break down: 6 1/2 years together and 4 1/2 year old
There is no wrong reason to leave someone. If, for any reason what so ever, you do not want to be with a person, then that reason is the right reason to leave them.
^^^all this right here0 -
^THISCut him loose. Find someone who DOES want to marry you and have children with you.
I hate it when I hear men have made a unilateral 'no more kids' decision - just beyond selfish. He knows that having more children will help to fufil you and complete your family and yet he denies you that. That's not a loving thing to do. If he had a dream... a goal.. that it were in your power to give - would you give it to him or deny him it? Even if it meant sacrifices and hardships probably you'd give it to him because it's obvious you love him. But maybe he doesn't love you back.
How does he "know" that? Sounds like an assumption.
What if his dream, his goal, was to have a mistress? I mean it might not be what the OP wants for him/them but if she really loved him she would help him make that happen right? She knows it would make him more complete and fulfilled.
I hate it when women make a unilateral decision that the man will have no mistress.
The point is that what 1 side of the relationship wants should not automatically be considered more important than what the other side of the relationship wants. Her desire to get married and have more kids is not automatically more important than his desire to not get married and not have more kids.
The guy is no more obligated to do what the girl wants than the girl is to do what the guy wants.
The whole idea that the guy is supposed to give the girl whatever she wants because he loves her, is pretty sexist.
There is a whole lot more involved in this decision, a lot of pros and cons of leaving vs staying, that are far more practical, important, and mature, to consider than just saying "oh he won't do what you want, leave him". If I was the OP it would take a lot of careful consideration to make a conclusion and for me it wouldn't be based on simply not getting what I want.0 -
But FYI, it's not just "his" property
If he bought it, with his money, and it's in his name... then yes by every conceivable and reasonable definition it is absolutely his property.
Even if he charged her room and board for living in his home, purchased during the marriage, it wouldn't equal the cost he'd then owe her for caring for his children. Child care, transportation, cooking, and cleaning add up.
That's why property purchased as a couple in a marriage is split. Property either bought beforehand is different.
It would be better if couples designed legal contracts for themselves before marriage to cover this rather than having the courts make the final decision. If I got divorced now, I would not see any need for alimony and wouldn't be entitled to it-we make the same amount of money and both work full-time. If he had a better job than I did, I still wouldn't see a need for alimony, because I can get by and didn't sacrifice my own education or work history to put him through college and raise children as a full-time SAHM. Once our marriage is over, there's no reason for me to assume that our standards of living will match. (Of course, property and debt we accrued together is a 50/50.)
However, other couples do it a different way. Person A and Person B agree that there is only enough money for one to go to school, and they mutually agree that person will be Person A and the other will take care of the home and raise the kids. (Don't assume it's only one gender role on that one-there are men and women happy to have the dad stay at home. I think my partner would be the better parent, for instance.) Person A goes to school, gets a job, and they purchase property to support the family. Person A is supporting the family financially (directly) but Person B is providing nurture and contributing financially indirectly by not having to outsource this to others. Time goes by and they grow tired of each other and want a divorce. The decisions listed above were mutual. Do I think Person A needs to care for Person B indefinitely? No, but I do think a reasonable amount of time for Person B to get on their feet is just that, reasonable. Because the couple agreed on that and make all sorts of contracts to each other by doing so, even if not done formally. (Technically, with the current laws being what they are, they did make that contract formally.)
I'd have no issue with couples designing their own contracts and updating them as needed. But calling it "his property and money" when they made family decisions while married in a contract is pretty off-base. Marriage is about meeting the needs of each other, sometimes sacrificing for each other. To then say that everything done financially is one-sided is pretty unfair. Unless you want consider the children HER children, made with her own body and supported with her own breasts and love and time, and not give him access to the children fair. (Or vice versa if he's a SAHD-they are then HIS children because he was the one caring for them. But wait-her body. Oh, no, how do we decide and make it fair now?)
The law and standard procedure in the courts is what it is, obviously I cannot argue that, but I can disagree with it on moral grounds.
The idea that she could or should in effect bill him for her time taking care of her own children is absolutely absurd. What about the time he spent taking care of his own children, can he in effect bill her for that? Ridiculous.
Personally I strongly disagree with the idea that property purchased by 1 person while in a marriage should automatically be joint property with the other person, unless there was a specific, formal, and legally binding agreement in writing stating such.
I understand that technically getting married means you are actually entering into such a contract, unless you have another contract that supersedes it (e.g. prenup). However the truth is in any other such legal matter you must have been given all of the details of the contract in writing for review so you know exactly what you are getting into, but when getting married none of this is generally explained to either party in any detail whatsoever. We generally get the romantic, religious, and moral details of the agreement (verbally) but none of the legal details. If everyone was to have all of this explained to them in detail before getting married I am willing to bet the prenup statistics would go through the roof, as they should.0 -
The idea that she could or should in effect bill him for her time taking care of her own children is absolutely absurd. What about the time he spent taking care of his own children, can he in effect bill her for that? Ridiculous.
It is (that's my point), but it's no more ridiculous than stating that it's somehow workable that she can stay home, raise the kids, and then have zero rights to the property if the two fail to make it work. It's not his property, it's their property, because they decided that one would make the sacrifice of being able to independently afford property to stay home and care for the home and children. Take the kids out of it-if it's his property, any time she spends cleaning it, or getting his groceries, or the millions of things spouses do for each other, then she can bill for that? That's why property is joint property. It's impossible to nickle and dime a marriage once you really look at all that's involved in the partnership. If you don't want that, don't sign over to each other. Date and maintain your own properties independently.
I do agree that couples should be more aware of what the legally binding contract actually means. There are a lot of financial and even life or death rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage. Maybe people should have to pass a written test and get their temps before they get married. Or at least sign a document that actually states what the full marital contract means.0 -
To clarify, this isn't about gender for me. Like I said earlier, if we ever had kids and could afford to have only one person work, there's a good chance he'd be the SAHP, and I'd consider the property our property, not mine. It's only the last few years that we've made the same amount of money. There have been times where I'm unemployed or vice versa, and for a long time, I made more money. Our money has always gone into a joint account and purchases were made with both of us in mind, not that I made more money and then had more to spend than him. I know not everyone lives their marriage that way, and everyone should find their own system. I personally would not have married someone who wanted separate accounts and to live financially like we are single. We've carried one another before and while I hope to not have one of us unemployed again, I know that I don't get that guarantee. Neither of us gets the guarantee that we won't become seriously ill or disabled. My partner is worth those risks. That's why I consider things joint. If another couple considers it differently, it's on each person in that relationship to get that hammered out ahead of time (prenup, anyone?) because the current system does favor the joint view of marriage (IMO, that's pretty reasonable, since marriage is a partnership. I don't believe in unlimited alimony or even in keeping one another to a standard to which they've become used to. Personally, I think Hollywood divorces where each person was financially independent and one pays alimony is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Child support is different.)0
-
I left my man because I wanted to get married before having more kids. He just wanted more kids, so I left. A few years later we hook up for booty calls and suddenly he freaks out cause I'm still seeing other guys. So he finally tells me he wants me back and proposes or else he knew it would be someone else. Lucky for him I still gave a rats *kitten*. Anyway, we just had our 2nd kid and they're 10yrs apart. I blame him for that ish. But leaving because you're not getting what you want is exactly what you should do regardless of the outcome, imo.
Eta: seeing how this became materialistic... I left his *kitten* and got my OWN place! He gave me money for our kid like clockwork. No lawyers. All was mutual and he was responsible as was I. I didn't try and take his ish. I was fine with what we agreed I would get monthly. When adults can come to terms like this it makes things much easier. Just because you can take someone to the cleaners, doesn't mean you should.0 -
I left my man because I wanted to get married before having more kids. He just wanted more kids, so I left. A few years later we hook up for booty calls and suddenly he freaks out cause I'm still seeing other guys. So he finally tells me he wants me back and proposes or else he knew it would be someone else. Lucky for him I still gave a rats *kitten*. Anyway, we just had our 2nd kid and they're 10yrs apart. I blame him for that ish. But leaving because you're not getting what you want is exactly what you should do regardless of the outcome, imo.
Eta: seeing how this became materialistic... I left his *kitten* and got my OWN place! He gave me money for our kid like clockwork. No lawyers. All was mutual and he was responsible as was I. I didn't try and take his ish. I was fine with what we agreed I would get monthly. When adults can come to terms like this it makes things much easier. Just because you can take someone to the cleaners, doesn't mean you should.
You are awesome... You are a REAL woman... Kudos to you... The world needs more like you!
0 -
You're exhausting. Ok, you win, mom made that choice entirely on her own, no input from dad and should totally suffer the consequences...evil b*tch. Kids are better off with dad who works full time and mom was just a vessel to get them into this world. Who needs her? There, happy?
Doesn't matter how much or how little input dad had, it was still her choice, and I still just can't see the logic behind the gigantic leap from that choice to alimony plus half his money/property.
So if kids are not better off with dad who works full time and can afford to support them, then you think they should be with mom and she shouldn't work? Because she has a womb she should get alimony plus half his money/property? Because she has a womb she would obviously be the better parent?
So dad should be punished because he works, makes money, and doesn't have a womb?
No, because it was THEIR choice to make it so that she would have to try to enter the workforce YEARS later so that it would make it difficult for her to get a job. Since she'd no longer have current experience and have to explain away her long absence from the work force. I work closely with the HR Department. It would be an issue. Others would be chosen before because they would have current, relevant experience.
Therefore, since he helped to make the choice to handicap her, the courts make the choice to be sure she and the kids aren't the only ones to pay for it.0 -
back in the day you didnt throw anything away, you fixed it. It seems a lot of people think that the grass is greener on the other side. Its always green over a septic tank :laugh:
This only works when BOTH people are willing to be in on the 'fix'.0 -
back in the day you didnt throw anything away, you fixed it. It seems a lot of people think that the grass is greener on the other side. Its always green over a septic tank :laugh:
You mean you settled.
The people who think they can have it all are the ones who are ruining the world. You always have to have some sort of compromise and settle one some front. It's just a matter of whether it's on something you can live with.0 -
that is why it is important to discuss these things.
kinda similar, 5 years. no ring. getting annoyed.0 -
Welp, I can identify with this:
Long story short: was with my ex for 8 years, he had no intention on marrying me nor wanted kids. Wouldn't have been a big deal, but he didn't want to compromise anything, and when things got rough, he would dangle the marriage idea in front of me to keep me in.
Straw that broke the camel's back: his best friend got married after he was with his lady friend for like 2 years... I was insanely hurt and that (among other things) was when I offically had it...
So, we broke up, and I've been so effing happy since.
However, I will tell you (and this is just my opinion) getting married didn't change my feelings in my new relationship.
But I love being a mom, and would like to have another kid, eventually, but right now all I can think about was how miserable I was when I was pregnant!0 -
back in the day you didnt throw anything away, you fixed it. It seems a lot of people think that the grass is greener on the other side. Its always green over a septic tank :laugh:
I HATE that quote about back in the good ol days you didn't throw anything away, you fixed it......SERIOUSLY?!? How many unhappy people were there? How many SHOULD have separated? Just because more marriages stayed together does NOT mean that they were happy. My ex husband and I are separated and it was definitely for the best. For my kids, for me and for him. We are all much happier because of it. Sorry for the anger but it pi$$es me off. Just because things don't work out does not mean that people didn't try or that they gave up and took the easy way out. Trust me, leaving was not an easy decision. We tried to fix it. We attended counselling. We "gave it time". We were just very different people than we were when we started. We no longer worked. The people who get on their high horse and look down at people who make the decision to separate are blind. They seem to be the unhappy ones who are too scared to leave their own relationship and vent their jealousy by directing anger at the people strong enough to do so. I am probably going to get attacked for that, but that is my opinion.
Also, I came from a family where I wish my parents had separated. They went literally years without speaking and slept in separate bedrooms. What the hell is the point of that? All to just stay together "for the children". We honestly would have been much happier if they had separated at that time and not when we had all moved out.0 -
I feel like people don't understand that they already have a child together. We don't know what his reasons are for not wanting to have another...they may be important and practical reasons. And if you are happy together why break up just because he doesn't want a wedding and a marriage license. Yeah, if you are truly unhappy in an irreparable way (like he beats you or you fight nonstop) then you don't have to stay in that, and if you don't have kids then feel free to do whatever you want. But, they already have a child together. I can't even fathom how people can say, "Sure, break up your family, go out and find some other guy, so you can have more kids." What?!? :noway:
^ Pretty much this. OP said she loves the guy, wants to be with him, etc. but "she" just recently decided after 6.5 years that marriage and another child were very important to HER. I think it's selfish to change the rules and expect him to immediately play the game according to those rules.
OP, I get that marriage is important to you, but do you want to break up your family and forever change the life of your child in the hopes that some other guy will put a ring on your finger if your current guy doesn't?0 -
You're exhausting. Ok, you win, mom made that choice entirely on her own, no input from dad and should totally suffer the consequences...evil b*tch. Kids are better off with dad who works full time and mom was just a vessel to get them into this world. Who needs her? There, happy?
Doesn't matter how much or how little input dad had, it was still her choice, and I still just can't see the logic behind the gigantic leap from that choice to alimony plus half his money/property.
So if kids are not better off with dad who works full time and can afford to support them, then you think they should be with mom and she shouldn't work? Because she has a womb she should get alimony plus half his money/property? Because she has a womb she would obviously be the better parent?
So dad should be punished because he works, makes money, and doesn't have a womb?
No, because it was THEIR choice to make it so that she would have to try to enter the workforce YEARS later so that it would make it difficult for her to get a job. Since she'd no longer have current experience and have to explain away her long absence from the work force. I work closely with the HR Department. It would be an issue. Others would be chosen before because they would have current, relevant experience.
Therefore, since he helped to make the choice to handicap her, the courts make the choice to be sure she and the kids aren't the only ones to pay for it.
The idea that "he helped to make the choice to handicap her" is an assumption. What if it was her choice and he discouraged it? Ultimately regardless of the input dad had, it was still her choice... he can't (legally) force her to not work.
But even if he encouraged her to not work I see no logic whatsoever in the leap to Alimony, Child Support, and half of his money/property. Child Support is one thing, or the kids could just stay with the parent that can actually provide for them which makes even more sense unless the parents decide otherwise.
It can be difficult for anyone, anywhere, to get a job (that they want), even straight out of Harvard. In general though jobs are available all over the place, oooo but she shouldn't have to take "that" job to support herself, no instead she should get Alimony and half his money/property. Regardless, after supporting the children, in whatever scenario I fail to see any logic behind Alimony + half of his money/property being justified.
"Of my own free will I stayed home to raise the kids. I don't want to be with you anymore. Aside from you continuing to support our children I now also expect you to give me a paycheck plus half of all your money and property."0 -
I don't want kids, ever. If I had a partner who wanted them I would leave. Wanting or not wanting children is so important, you can't just change your mind on those things, neither of you will be happy and you'll resent each other.0
-
I don't want kids, ever. If I had a partner who wanted them I would leave. Wanting or not wanting children is so important, you can't just change your mind on those things, neither of you will be happy and you'll resent each other.
:flowerforyou: :drinker: 0 -
What about the child you already have? You're going to split him from his father? What are his reasons for not wanting to get married and have more kids?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions