Posted on 12/03/2013 2:35:53 AM PST by markomalley
We ARE about personal responsibility. But child support is mostly about giving women unaccounted-for money, not supporting children. The slut that married my brother took his money and built a house where the slut shacked up with its first cousin. Now the kids are grown and slut still owns the house. How did the slut's ability to build a house for itself and for its first cousin help the kids? Now that the kids are grown, why wouldn't my brother be entitled to partial ownership of the house, considering that any use HIS children have had of it is done, but the slut still owns the house? How does building luxury housing for sluts equate to responsibility for one's children?
You also stated that most folks you know who are divorced with kids have shared custody - two weeks here, two weeks there. Okay, great. Why do ANY of the women get ANY child support, if the men are taking care of their children half the time?
And why isn't shared PHYSICAL custody the default, rather than nearly 90% of women getting physical custody? Could it be these women don't want to let go of that child support check?
And how is sending a check once a month MORE of taking responsibility by a man for his children than seeking physical custody of his children (which many, many, many more than 10% of men actually do)? A man is MORE responsible to send a check than to keep his children in his home, feed them, clothe them, get them to school, make sure the homework gets done, etc.?
You have so many hidden premises, beg so many questions.
Oh, by the way - some women DO have to pay child support. About one woman is thusly sentenced for about every nine men. But men more reliably pay child support than deadbeat moms. Why are so many women unwilling to take responsibility for their children?
The system is inherently corrupt, and that corruption is tilted badly to favor women. With no-fault divorce, the initiator needs no serious reason to end the marriage. If the initiator is the wife, she can reasonably expect physical custody and significant child support, which is, essentially, free money for her to spend as she wishes.
Why should a man be held "responsible" for a situation he didn't create, and may have fought hard to prevent? Why do we give someone the right to unilaterally end a serious contract without cause? Why is the victim usually forced to pay for the outcome?
You talk about men taking responsibility for their children. How is it "responsible" for women to obtain divorces without cause and destroy the lives of their husbands and children? Does responsibility flow in only one direction? Is it not IRresponsible when one spouse unilaterally violates the marriage contract without cause, causing harm to all, and then foists the cost of the damages onto the innocent spouse?
Where divorce is truly necessary (and I've known a few circumstances where it really was), let the harmed party sue for divorce with cause. And prove in court, at least by the civil suit standard of a preponderance of the evidence that there are serious reasons for the action. Then, issues regarding money can be hashed out.
But nearly all divorces are no-fault, and about two-thirds of them are initiated by women who are little more than thieves out to steal from their soon-to-be ex-husbands. In these cases, let the initiating spouse go free, but without the loot he/she tries to wrest from his/her innocent spouse.
Without reforms of no-fault divorce laws, marriage is an extreme liability for men.
sitetest
Yeah, it seems like there are more divorces than should be necessary. Then again, I’m not close enough to anyone else’s marriage to judge.
And the principle, rightly IMO, is that custody should be decided in the best interest of the children. Often older children get to decide and may change from living with one parent to the other over the years. In general, it seems the older they get the more likely they are to want to live with dad, where supervision may be less close.
Likewise, child support should then follow according to the needs and interest of the child—not as punishment or reward for the parents.
Most women in marriages are the ones who compromise with lesser hours at the less demanding jobs so as to invest more time and responsibility for the kids. That’s simply how it is. So it’s not surprising that many divorce courts find it is in the interest of the kids to stay with the parent who has been doing the more involved parenting.
And I myself gave you an example of a woman paying child support, while saying that it was the exception rather than the rule.
Again, I’ve not been close enough in such marriages to judge, but I have certainly been told by women of their husbands actively trying to make them leave, so that the husband could get the upper hand in a property settlement.
The number of married households where the husband is the primary breadwinner is no longer anywhere 90%. Yet, physical custody is still granted to women 90% of the time. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
You, yourself said that in many cases, exes share physical custody - two weeks here, two weeks there. In that custody is roughly 50 - 50, why would ANY of these women receive child support? Would it not be more appropriate that each parent pay for the expenses they incur while the child is with them, and any shared expenses (tuition, unpaid medical bills, etc.) be split evenly? Why do ANY of these women get child support? ANY??
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“Likewise, child support should then follow according to the needs and interest of the child—not as punishment or reward for the parents.”
If we're talking about the interests of the children, why is no-fault divorce permitted at all where there are children, now that we know the horrible deformation of children that divorce causes?
Because no-fault divorce is both an escape hatch for women and a way to milk men for all they have. The law is inherently biased against men.
As for punishment, how is it in the best interest of the child to see the majesty of the LAW reward people for unilaterally breaking the marriage contract without cause? Does that not damage the child's moral development? Why is the law-BREAKER rewarded, to the detriment of the child?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“Most women in marriages are the ones who compromise with lesser hours at the less demanding jobs...”
Not as much anymore. Most college degrees today, and most graduate degrees, are awarded to women. Women have made dramatic gains in jobs and wages in the last 40 years, and are much closer to par than they once were. By the same token, job opportunities for men have declined dramatically in the past 40 years. The traditional “mommy stays at home or works part-time and daddy is the primary breadwinner” might still apply in a majority of married households, but certainly, not in 90% of divorces with children. Certainly not in my brother's marriage and divorce. Yet, women still get physical custody nearly 90% of the time. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“And I myself gave you an example of a woman paying child support, while saying that it was the exception rather than the rule.”
Big deal. You, yourself admit, it's the exception, not the rule.
“... but I have certainly been told by women of their husbands actively trying to make them leave, so that the husband could get the upper hand in a property settlement.”
This happens far more frequently to men by their lying, cheating, scum-sucking wives. It happened to my brother. The slut promised to seek joint marriage counseling if he would leave the family home, to give it, the slut, space. The slut wouldn't give him notice in writing that this is to what the slut agreed. It told him that it loved him, and he relented. That's how it got the first unjust child support agreement. When my brother brought this to the attention of the court, they didn't care. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
It has changed a little over the decades. Not that long ago, men had nearly no chance at custody. Now they get it about 13% of the time.
But basically, no-fault divorce is a legal vehicle available to women to screw their husbands legally when they get bored, or tired, or fall for someone else, or just want to be free from the obligations of marriage, and want a free ride paid for by their ex-husbands.
Men who marry today do so at their own peril.
REAL women, if there are any left after my wife, should be fighting to reform no-fault divorce law. Otherwise, many of the best men will not marry.
Or, they will insist on tight pre-nuptial agreements (especially men who either have earned any wealth or come from families with any accumulated wealth) that really aren't good for women, or anyone. Very sad.
Any way, far from being the misogynist of your unjust accusation, or a bitter divorced man of your overactive imagination, I'm just a happily married guy of 30+ years with two great sons and the best wife in the world who has seen the horrors of no-fault divorce up=close, and has researched the statistics, and see that the injustices that oppress men ultimately redound to the harm of women, too.
Many men are on strike against marriage, and it is the fault of the divorce laws and the evil women who use them for their own selfish gain and pleasure.
sitetest
Wow. I feel sorry for you for seeing things through that kind of lens. No-fault divorce was actually instituted in large part to protect children from messy divorces with dirty laundry aired.
If women have sacrificed professionally for child rearing, then yes, men should supplement their income with child support unless he has fewer resources than she.
If the law does not accord preferences by gender then it is not biased by gender.
And it’s not that long ago that houses were in the husband’s name only and thereby remained his property through divorce.
You feel sorry for me? *chuckle* Those who labor in delusion and fantasy are the ones who should be pitied.
“No-fault divorce was actually instituted in large part to protect children from messy divorces with dirty laundry aired.”
Even assuming the most positive motives for these laws, have you heard of unintended consequences? That's what we've got in spades with no-fault divorce.
“If women have sacrificed professionally for child rearing, then yes, men should supplement their income with child support unless he has fewer resources than she.”
Do you know anyone with shared physical custody where the man pays the woman child support? What is the justification for that? If a spouse throws the other spouse out of the house (which is essentially what happens in a unilateral no-fault divorce), the guilty spouse is saying, "I no longer want any part of you." Why should that person have the legal right to say, "I no longer want any part of you. Except the contents of your wallet."
If custody is physically shared, then each spouse does the best for the children when he/she has custody. Let each spouse stand on his/her own two feet, since the guilty spouse has otherwise rejected the innocent spouse. The innocent spouse owes the guilty spouse nothing. The innocent parent owes his/her children what he/she can provide for them WHILE IN HIS/HER custody.
If the guilty one says, "I can't support my children as well without stealing from my ex-husband/wife," then let him/her take that into consideration before throwing over the innocent spouse. You might want a Mercedes-Benz, but if all you can afford is a Kia, then you don't have the right to steal it from your victims. Talk about personal responsibility.
If one spouse initiates the no-fault divorce, and the other spouse doesn't want it, why does the innocent spouse have to pay for something he or she didn't want, and tried to prevent?
In what other contractual arrangement does one party get to break the contract without cause, and, by function of law, the other party is forced to pay for all the bad consequences? It's usually the other way around.
Since I've pointed out the fact that women have gained in the workplace and men have lost quite a bit, why do women still get physical custody nearly 90% of the time, and over 90% of child support?
“If the law does not accord preferences by gender then it is not biased by gender.”
If the law is enforced in a discriminatory way, then the law, as enforced, is biased.
“And it’s not that long ago that houses were in the husband’s name only and thereby remained his property through divorce.”
Most folks, when they buy a house, get a mortgage. Most folks, when they buy a house, apply for the mortgage together, in part, because even if one spouse's income is less than the other spouse's, their combined income may be necessary to qualify for the mortgage. Typically, if both names are on the mortgage, the bank wants both names on the title. Banks much prefer, in fact, they often insist, that folks on the mortgage are the folks on the title.
If the husband buys the house on his own, without the financial contribution of the wife (or vice versa), and is the innocent victim of a wife who no-fault divorces him (or vice versa), the guilty spouse should receive nothing of the innocent spouse's assets. At all. Ever.
And, in fact, increasingly, to coax men into a legally-disadvantageous relationship, women will have to accept pre-nuptial agreements that put them at a disadvantage.
You'd almost have half an argument if no-fault divorces were only available upon mutual consent. But New York is the last state to join that bandwagon, in 2010. All 50 states and the District of Columbia all grant unilateral no-fault divorce.
The victimizer doesn't have the right to loot the assets of the victim.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.