Do you know anyone that got royally screwed by a divorce?

Oblivian said:
The problem is that you are mainly hearing the husband's sides. I've literally looked at hundreds of divorces, and I can only tell you about one or two that seemed out of line. Those dealt with one side getting a good attorney vs. the other side trying to go pro se.

People never look at the whole story. Here's a simple situation and how it would play out here. The husband has $400k in retirement, they own $200k house free and clear, husband has a $25k car, and the wife has a $25k car. Everything else is negligible. Since the wife has raised the kids in the home that the kids know, the judge gives the wife the home and her car. That is $225k of assets. The husband is sitting on $425k with his retirement and his car. In order to make that equal, a lump sum of $100k should be paid to the wife. Therefore, they both walk away with $325k in assets. On top of that, there will be child support and possibly alimony. All that you'll hear from the husband is "OMG - she got the house AND $100k from my retirement. House is that fair!!!1" It's pretty simple, she got half, but everyone will cry, "That's crazy! How is that fair!"
Click to expand...
I presume that all those assets were acquired during marriage?

But your whole story is missing one important aspect. How much should the bread winning parent should be compensated for the loss of his/her children? (it's a rhetorical question). It is after all the most important 'asset' and the main reason men get married. But it is never accounted in the split. The parent losing the children is never compensated for losing them and I think that's where a lot of resentment comes from.
 
Crazyced said:
I presume that all those assets were acquired during marriage?

But your whole story is missing one important aspect. How much should the bread winning parent should be compensated for the loss of his/her children? (it's a rhetorical question). It is after all the most important 'asset' and the main reason men get married. But it is never accounted in the split. The parent losing the children is never compensated for losing them and I think that's where a lot of resentment comes from.
Click to expand...

This is the point that I'm trying to make. The court's primary concern is not "who wins - the wife or husband". The primary concern is what is best for the children. It's really hard to imagine taking money from the custodial parent, who is raising the kids, to compensate for the "loss" of the non-custodial parent. That's basically saying, "Let's take money that could go to diapers and school supplies and give to the husband since he doesn't get to see them as much. That will make him feel better". Good luck with that argument.

Edit: In regards to the hypothetical, it gets a little more gray if it was acquired prior to marriage and there are arguments to make. Even in the case where it was acquired during marriage, most men would say "the husband got screwed" once he says, "she got the house AND I have to pay her $100k"! They don't realize that he's sitting on $300k that was originally for BOTH of their retirements.
 
My dad... To be fair he brought it onto himself. When he was married to my mom, he would work just enough to qualify for unemployment so he can get fired or let go on purpose then sit on his ass until it run out.
Whole time he's on his ass, he would demand everybody in the house to do as he say or he'll raise hell and make everybody life miserable. He also drink.

Once my mom finally divorced him, he suddenly realized that he cannot treat his family like crap and get away with it. Unfortunately his answer to problem is to drink like hell.

Irony? My mom never ever tried to get anything from him. Not even children support. Yet my dad wind up living in a really shitty motel and trying to pull his woeful life together.
Unfortunately he eventually lose his leg then few years later passed away from heavy drinking and still downright bitter toward my mom and his current wife who was separated, heading toward a divorce.

I remember going through his letters to try find his best friend's address. Found a letter he wrote to his wife, he was still fighting with her AND my mom over something that happened years ago!

He definitely screwed himself hard on this one.
 
Oblivian said:
This is the point that I'm trying to make. The court's primary concern is not "who wins - the wife or husband". The primary concern is what is best for the children. It's really hard to imagine taking money from the custodial parent, who is raising the kids, to compensate for the "loss" of the non-custodial parent. That's basically saying, "Let's take money that could go to diapers and school supplies and give to the husband since he doesn't get to see them as much. That will make him feel better". Good luck with that argument.

Edit: In regards to the hypothetical, it gets a little more gray if it was acquired prior to marriage and there are arguments to make. Even in the case where it was acquired during marriage, most men would say "the husband got screwed" once he says, "she got the house AND I have to pay her $100k"! They don't realize that he's sitting on $300k that was originally for BOTH of their retirements.
Click to expand...

I asked before but...

Shouldn't the situation that caused the divorce count for something?
 
JJWrestler said:
I meant from your opinion, not how the law is set-up.
Click to expand...

I think it can apply, but more often than not, you are just setting up the winners to be the attorneys. There are so many gray areas with "at fault" that you are likely to take on ridiculous amount of attorney hours.
 
Oblivian said:
This is the point that I'm trying to make. The court's primary concern is not "who wins - the wife or husband". The primary concern is what is best for the children. It's really hard to imagine taking money from the custodial parent, who is raising the kids, to compensate for the "loss" of the non-custodial parent. That's basically saying, "Let's take money that could go to diapers and school supplies and give to the husband since he doesn't get to see them as much. That will make him feel better". Good luck with that argument.

Edit: In regards to the hypothetical, it gets a little more gray if it was acquired prior to marriage and there are arguments to make. Even in the case where it was acquired during marriage, most men would say "the husband got screwed" once he says, "she got the house AND I have to pay her $100k"! They don't realize that he's sitting on $300k that was originally for BOTH of their retirements.
Click to expand...

Are you a feminist?
 
SherdogGoat said:
Are you a feminist?
Click to expand...

/notsureifserious

I'm just being realistic. It's just amazing to me how clueless people are with divorce. It's not even that difficult of a concept. The judge tries to split current assets and current liabilities 50/50, and then he tries to maintain the status quo for the children and custodial parent. The outcome shouldn't be shocking to anyone that doesn't have the blinders on.
 
I have a foolproof system.

I'm such a colossal asshole at the end of the relationship that women just want to get away from me. They don't want anything but their freedom. It's beautiful.
 
i don't know if its considered screwed, but my buddy married a chick with a kid from a previous relationship, he also had a kid .... when they ended up getting divorced, she wanted him to pay for her kids post secondary school ... he lost, had to pay for her kids schooling, then had to tell his own kid he didn't have enough money to pay for his own kids school ... she had to take out a loan, the other kid graduated with no loan ... sucks
 
Oblivian said:
This is the point that I'm trying to make. The court's primary concern is not "who wins - the wife or husband". The primary concern is what is best for the children. It's really hard to imagine taking money from the custodial parent, who is raising the kids, to compensate for the "loss" of the non-custodial parent. That's basically saying, "Let's take money that could go to diapers and school supplies and give to the husband since he doesn't get to see them as much. That will make him feel better". Good luck with that argument.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's definitely very hard to go against the 'what's best for the children' argument, non biological parents have been forced to pay child support under that premise. It just so happen that what's best for them is also best for the custodial parent. Funny how you said 'money that could go to diapers and school supplies'. Because child support money don't go to the children, it goes to the spouse. All you can do is prey that they uses your money on your children the way you would like to and not on themselves. It's also 'what's best for the children' that visitation rights are enforced yet it rarely ever is. Withhold payment though and see what happens.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm sharing how I see things.
 
rearnakedchoke said:
i don't know if its considered screwed, but my buddy married a chick with a kid from a previous relationship, he also had a kid .... when they ended up getting divorced, she wanted him to pay for her kids post secondary school ... he lost, had to pay for her kids schooling, then had to tell his own kid he didn't have enough money to pay for his own kids school ... she had to take out a loan, the other kid graduated with no loan ... sucks
Click to expand...
Heh, speaking of 'what's best for the (her) children'. But how did that even float? Can you enforce child support for an adult?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,067
Messages
55,464,899
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top