The point however is that it doesn't matter who is at fault as long as the one at fault is the one who pays. In my experience it has always been the woman who strayed (three divorces in my family and a few in my circle of friends). In an ideal world they should have lost all claim to the assets of the marriage including the kids.
Let me expand this into a related field by stating that only scumbag women get child support (usually). If the divorce was the woman's fault then she's a scumbag. If her husband was a good man then she'll get paid support because he's a good man. If her husband wasn't a good man she'll not get support because he's a scumbag just like her. If the divorce was the man's fault then he is a scumbag. Scumbag men seldom if ever pay child support. If both the man and the woman were good then they wouldn't be divorced, they'd be working to improve their marriage.
This is why the one at fault should lose the kids, obviously they are a scumbag and a poor role model for children. My wife and I have been married 15 years and are in total agreement on all of this BTW.
GSA(P)
I am in TOTAL agreement with you on this one. Thankfully, due to a bit of blackmailing on my part - this is exactly how my first marriage turned out. He left, I filed (after waiting over 1 year to be able to come up with the money while still keeping the children fed and clothed), the 'legal system' told me that 'he' had all these 'rights' (never mind that he moved in with a woman with four teenaged boys, one already an alcoholic and one a drug user while he and I had a teenaged son and 12 year old daughter) to visitation, etc., etc. Well - I had a problem with my daughter being in that atmosphere and got VERY lucky that he did something HIGHLY illegal and I found out about it. He has never paid any child support (even though it was court ordered with a host of other things), has never even tried to contact the children (even during Christmas and their birthdays) even though they used to call him (with my blessings) fairly regularly. I did not have a problem with them seeing their father whenever they wished AS LONG as they were not subjected to being around these two particular sons of his new "??". Anyway, point is - with the legal system the way it is - our children would have been FORCED into a VERY bad situation and the only recourse I could have had to legally stop it would have been AFTER something had already happened to one of our children!!! And to really add insult to injury - according to all these statistics, everything is MY fault because I'm the one who filed the papers!! Outrageous!
Sorry to ramble - but there ARE examples that do not bear out this article.
Thank God above that now the children have an EXCELLENT father figure that they are friends with and look up to and we are all stronger for having weathered the bad times. They also have a new little brother to play with and spoil and we all enjoy one another's company and get along very well.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure.