Is it wrong/ok to leave someone if.......

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?

Just FYI - I think that alimony and child support makes sense in these cases, INCLUDING when the dad stays home and sacrifices his career. Not that you should get it for the rest of your life, but that help to get back on your feet if you and your spouse made the decision to have one of you stay at home makes sense for the family. I would agree, from experience, that the courts are biased towards the mother in strange ways and as a feminist (someone who believes in equality), I think this is a travesty and needs to be changed.

However, one of the things that bothers me is that the people I hear saying that a woman who sacrifices her career to stay at home shouldn't get anything in the case of a divorce are often the same people who say things like "why would you have a kid and then leave it to be raised by someone else." They are the people pushing the woman to give up her career and hopes and dreams for her family, while encouraging her husband to pursue his. They get you coming and going.

And in that spirit, I ask: when you say that a woman should not get custody if she can't afford her kids after a divorce because she doesn't have a career: who will look after the kids while the father is at work? And is taking the kids away from their primary caregiver really in the best interest of the family and the child? Wouldn't it make more sense to give the children equal access to both of their parents,

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."

If they are married, it is THEIR property. But, somehow, I think this argument would always be lost with you. So, we should all just stop wasting our time.

If they are married, it is THEIR property. But, somehow, I think this argument would always be lost with you. So, we should all just stop wasting our time.

No, I understand that legally when you get married, by law, any property purchased during the marriage belongs to both parties. But my moral convictions aren't determined by the votes of politicians or rulings of judges.

Morally, if he (for example) bought the house with his money, from his paycheck, earned as a result of his work, then it is his property.

I also get that many will say, but the kids, the kids, she stayed home, cuz he somehow forced her to or "they" decided she would, and so her career, and, and, and so on. And many will then conclude therefore child support isn't enough, and alimony isn't enough, she must also get half of all his money and property too.

Ok, but if they didn't have kids, and she did or did not stay home, and she did or did not give up her career, even if she contributed not 1 penny to the house bought while they were married, it is still legally "their" property and she is entitled to half of it. That is absolutely crazy! Ridiculous! Nothing moral or just about it.

I see, so the men that want their women sitting at their feet adoring them. Having their meals prepared for them when they arrive home. Being able to eat off the floor because she so lovingly took care of HIS home and took care of their children. She is just supposed to do that out of love and adoration for her man. But, when he's done with her. Tough crap. Get a job wench. Quit living off of me. Ta ta. Adios.

Yeh, tough luck. It's all his. He worked for it.

Nothing wrong with leaving someone because your visions aren't lining up and the relationship isn't fullfilling, as long as you leave the relationship before you find a new one.

YesIAm17 -- I totally agree with you. A lot of men get royally shafted during divorce proceedings. I have men in my circle of relatives / friends who ended up with nothing through no fault of their own, being totally cleaned out by women who cared about no one else but themselves. In one case a friend ended up separating because SHE cheated (with the boys football coach incidentally) and guess what the court did??? She got to stay in the house with the kids, he had to move out. She didn't have the financial means to buy him out so she isn't forced to. He now has to pay rent for a small flat for himself (a bedsit really!!) PLUS the mortgage on the family home. When his boys come on the weekend he has to sleep on the sofa because there is no spare bedroom. He has to pay her for her upkeep as well as paying for the kids... So basically she is sitting on her lazy cheating backside in a massive house, carrying on her affair while ex-hubby pays for it all, lives in a pathetic bedsit, loses 80% of his income and gets to sleep on the sofa when he has his kids over. The sad thing is he is not an exception and a lot of women think this is ok conduct.

YesIAm17 -- I totally agree with you. A lot of men get royally shafted during divorce proceedings. I have men in my circle of relatives / friends who ended up with nothing through no fault of their own, being totally cleaned out by women who cared about no one else but themselves. In one case a friend ended up separating because SHE cheated (with the boys football coach incidentally) and guess what the court did??? She got to stay in the house with the kids, he had to move out. She didn't have the financial means to buy him out so she isn't forced to. He now has to pay rent for a small flat for himself (a bedsit really!!) PLUS the mortgage on the family home. When his boys come on the weekend he has to sleep on the sofa because there is no spare bedroom. He has to pay her for her upkeep as well as paying for the kids... So basically she is sitting on her lazy cheating backside in a massive house, carrying on her affair while ex-hubby pays for it all, lives in a pathetic bedsit, loses 80% of his income and gets to sleep on the sofa when he has his kids over. The sad thing is he is not an exception and a lot of women think this is ok conduct.

Thank you for sharing this! :flowerforyou:

I also realize that sometimes it does go in the exact opposite direction as well, with the woman getting screwed. Either one is unacceptable, immoral, and 100% completely preventable (with prenups or no marriage but other formal legal documents).

I personally look forward to having a rich, loving, and deeply committed relationship with an amazing woman and intend to ensure we work together to make sure that if it ever does end that it ends without either getting a raw deal.

If they are married, it is THEIR property. But, somehow, I think this argument would always be lost with you. So, we should all just stop wasting our time.

No, I understand that legally when you get married, by law, any property purchased during the marriage belongs to both parties. But my moral convictions aren't determined by the votes of politicians or rulings of judges.

Morally, if he (for example) bought the house with his money, from his paycheck, earned as a result of his work, then it is his property.

I also get that many will say, but the kids, the kids, she stayed home, cuz he somehow forced her to or "they" decided she would, and so her career, and, and, and so on. And many will then conclude therefore child support isn't enough, and alimony isn't enough, she must also get half of all his money and property too.

Ok, but if they didn't have kids, and she did or did not stay home, and she did or did not give up her career, even if she contributed not 1 penny to the house bought while they were married, it is still legally "their" property and she is entitled to half of it. That is absolutely crazy! Ridiculous! Nothing moral or just about it.

I see, so the men that want their women sitting at their feet adoring them. Having their meals prepared for them when they arrive home. Being able to eat off the floor because she so lovingly took care of HIS home and took care of their children. She is just supposed to do that out of love and adoration for her man. But, when he's done with her. Tough crap. Get a job wench. Quit living off of me. Ta ta. Adios.

Yeh, tough luck. It's all his. He worked for it.

Who says she has to do those things? Did he knowingly and formally agree that if she did those things he would give her Alimony and half his money/property? Why is it assumed that he is the one who is done with her?

Maybe she was lazy and just didn't want to work? Maybe she found someone else? Maybe she just realized she could leave him for no reason at all and get a free paycheck plus Alimony and half his money/property.

Why is it assumed that she was an angel and did everything right in the world but he is the devil and deserves to pay?

Or, maybe they sat down as two grown adults and discussed what was best for their family.

I never assumed that she was an angel and he a devil. I never assumed that she would get full custody of the kids and he would not. You seem to be the one assuming things.

My exhusband's first wife cheated on him. She assumed all that you are saying. She would get the kids, the house, all the belongings AND alimony. The FOC told her different. In our area, joint custody is automatic unless one parent does not want physical custody. Or, unless one parent can prove the other unfit.

When I got divorced. FOC was not even involved. Because, we, as two grown, adult, loving parents, put all animosity aside and did what we felt was best for our children. I let him keep his "castle" and all of his belongings and started from scratch. (Ok, I have to admit that it wasn't even worth going after...but still, I could have started over with a little more than from scratch.)

You keep saying, "Maybe she was lazy." Maybe his argument for her staying home was better than hers for going to work. Are all women evil and lazy to you?

I have two daughters that are stay-at-home moms. So, maybe I'm biased? But, the decisions were made mutually and my sons-in-law are happy with the decisions they have made. If anything should ever happen, my girls are willing and able to go to work. Because, like their Momma, they've got their pride. They will do what's right by their children. And, they will work their buns off to provide for them. But, their fathers better be prepared to do the same and not expect her to do it on her own.

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?

Just FYI - I think that alimony and child support makes sense in these cases, INCLUDING when the dad stays home and sacrifices his career. Not that you should get it for the rest of your life, but that help to get back on your feet if you and your spouse made the decision to have one of you stay at home makes sense for the family. I would agree, from experience, that the courts are biased towards the mother in strange ways and as a feminist (someone who believes in equality), I think this is a travesty and needs to be changed.

However, one of the things that bothers me is that the people I hear saying that a woman who sacrifices her career to stay at home shouldn't get anything in the case of a divorce are often the same people who say things like "why would you have a kid and then leave it to be raised by someone else." They are the people pushing the woman to give up her career and hopes and dreams for her family, while encouraging her husband to pursue his. They get you coming and going.

And in that spirit, I ask: when you say that a woman should not get custody if she can't afford her kids after a divorce because she doesn't have a career: who will look after the kids while the father is at work? And is taking the kids away from their primary caregiver really in the best interest of the family and the child? Wouldn't it make more sense to give the children equal access to both of their parents,

I would agree with some kind of temporary assistance, beyond and aside from child support, in some of these cases to help the less well off spouse through an initial period of adjustment. Of course we also have a social safety net, at least in this country, to temporarily help the unemployed and financially struggling among us.

Alimony however is based on the previous standard of living the spouse was made accustomed to and could (likely often does) far far far far far far exceed the spirit of that idea. Half of the more well off spouse's money and property also could (likely often does) far far far far far far exceed the spirit of that idea as well.

I can't agree with the logic behind the argument that the kids can't live with dad because he is too busy making money, so they instead should live with mom.... who now actually also needs to go get busy making money. Who will look after the kids while she is at work? Plenty of single parents work full time and raise their kids, be they a mom or a dad. So again beyond child support (if the kids are living with her full time), I see no logic to giving mom a paycheck plus half his money/property.

Sure joint custody makes more sense. Cut the child support in half. I still see no remotely valid argument for Alimony plus half his money/property.

Personally I simply don't buy the argument that either parent needs to give up their career to raise their children themselves. They can both still work part/full time and raise their own kids, many do. Either way though, whatever you believe about that, it is a CHOICE made of ones own free will.

sorry - I wasn't clear. I was being quite tongue in cheek with the "who will look after the kids if he's off working" argument, but re-reading my response I can see that wasn't clear.

Given that most couples think of their property as joint instead of his and hers, it's not really "his" property in most cases. Perhaps you like to keep finances separate, but most of us pool our incomes and pay out for various things, while splitting the "free" labour that is required to keep a household going (statistically this isn't even, but I don't want to even go there). So in my case, my husband and I net within $100 of one another most years and so it's literally 50/50. We have discussed this and we share everything. It's all in both of our names. If one of us were to stay at home, it would be him, because I am working in my dream field and he's more of a work to live kind of a guy. And in that case, the property etc. would all be joint. We are a partnership, and if he is doing the bulk of the "free" household labour, while I'm doing the paid outside of the house labour, then why should it be any different than it is now in terms of property? In both cases, we're working together to build a life and I really don't see a way to make that work while thinking of our major purchases as his or mine.

Where I live, alimony isn't very common (I'm not American), but child support isn't cheap and there is nothing in place to ensure that the money is actually going to the children. I could imagine that alimony + child support would nearly break a person.

All that to say, you need to talk about these things at length and revisit often to make it work and to know that it's still working. But, I guess it's marriages that don't work out that come up against this in the end, isn't it?

So, you having more kids or what?

i suggest you leave your laptop open to this thread when he is home... things should work themselves out

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: