Do not ever ever ever let your wife stay home or go part time.

[KC Jones]

Seriously, our divorce system is so ****ed up. Because the "expectation during the marriage" was that she only worked 8 hour weeks for the last few years - she gets a huge payday even though her hourly rate is $42 - which would put her well over $80k/year if working full time. It doesn't matter that I didn't want the divorce or that this is all her idea or that she's a full time volunteer for a cult she joined. I could end up paying her ****ing income for 9+ years thanks to my ****ed up no-fault state and the "alimony reform" they enacted this year, so she can keep being an unpaid cult member and only work part time.



Seriously, if you are married with kids, even if it costs more for daycare than she makes - keep her working full time or divorce as soon as she cuts back her hours.

[Amnorix]

I don't practice divorce law, but I will say this -- I am seeing somewhat more fairness in the system that we used to. Don't mistake that with PERFECT fairness, but it used to be worse.

Lately I've seen/heard more instances of men being awarded outright custody of kids, men being awarded alimony from high-earning women, and Massachusetts dramatically revamped it's HORRIFIC divorce laws to make them somewhat more fair.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

One I'm looking into won't begin for another year.. That seems like a great amount of time for me to take any prereqs my wonderful English degree doesnt' cover along with getting logistics in order.

See if you can find some old Level 1 CFA curriculum books at Half Price Books or online somewhere. Just read all the volumes and work the problems and you'll be ahead of the game. Then get Level 2 and do the same.

[Discuss Thrower]

In regards to marital rights and stuff, there needs to be a *serious* push to make paternity tests an inalienable right to every American man.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Der Flöprer

I'm seriously sitting here raging over this. It's ****ing preposterous that a woman can suddenly decide to become a whore and still run off with half your shit, AND a monthly ****ing welfare check that you're personally responsible to pay...

Doesn't everyone know this is part of the deal?

Whatever you accumulate in your time together, you split evenly when one person decides its over. Doesn't matter that its one persons fault. That they want to run off with their secretary, bang the pool boy etc.

Not saying its right, but its been that way 30-40 years now. You don't like it, get a pre-nuptial agreement. I bet bringing that subject up will go over real well.

[Amnorix]

A summary of the revisions in Massachusetts divorce laws enacted a couple years ago.

http://betterafter50.com/2012/06/div...-women-beware/

And reform is what we got. The new Alimony Reform Act creates four distinct categories of alimony: rehabilitative alimony (support to help a person become self-sufficient within 5 years), reimbursement alimony (support awarded in short-term marriages to compensate for prior contributions to the payor’s financial resources, such as financing the payor’s education), transitional alimony (support awarded in short-term marriages to help the recipient adjust to a relocation or change in lifestyle), and general term alimony (regular payments of support based on the number of months a couple were married, usually in an amount equal to 30-35% of the difference in the parties’ incomes).

What’s more, alimony is NOT now for life. The Act provides that Alimony terminates when the payor reaches full retirement age. Further, a spouse’s cohabitation with a sexual partner for more than 90 days may result in the suspension, reduction, or termination of alimony payments. And this does not just apply to new divorces! Previously divorced persons may seek the new benefits offered by the Act by returning to Court to modify their previous divorce judgments (provided they have met the “waiting periods” detailed in the Act).

What does this mean to us? Divorcing women cannot expect to be supported by their former spouses for remainder of their lives. Women are well-advised to develop a reasonable plan to become self-supporting, particularly if they are married for fewer than 20 years (which is the date that courts in the Commonwealth can consider awarding alimony for an indefinite length of time). BA50s who currently receive alimony need to take action right now to plan for the inevitable end of alimony in their “golden years.” (Although it is not entirely clear, the Act suggests that providers/husbands may be permitted to continue to work beyond retirement age and have no obligation to pay alimony to their former spouses even if the marriage was longer than twenty years.)

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

In regards to marital rights and stuff, there needs to be a *serious* push to make paternity tests an inalienable right to every American man.

They need to be automatic for every birth IMO.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

In regards to marital rights and stuff, there needs to be a *serious* push to make paternity tests an inalienable right to every American man.

That shit won't matter.

Despite having no alimony, in Texas if you are married to a chick and she gets pregnant you are assumed to be the father and responsible for that child. If you don't contest this really soon or you provide for the child, then you're on the hook even if the real father is found down the road (this happened to someone I know).

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by notorious

They need to be automatic for every birth IMO.

It definitely should be.

The most common sense and DEFENSIBLE reason to test the paternity of a child is to determine whether or not a child faces health issues from an inheritable disease like Huntington's...

[notorious]

Originally Posted by KC native

That shit won't matter.

Despite having no alimony, in Texas if you are married to a chick and she gets pregnant you are assumed to be the father and responsible for that child. If you don't contest this really soon or you provide for the child, then you're on the hook even if the real father is found down the road (this happened to someone I know).

JFC


On what backwards ****ing planet does that make any sense?

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by KC native

That shit won't matter.

Despite having no alimony, in Texas if you are married to a chick and she gets pregnant you are assumed to be the father and responsible for that child. If you don't contest this really soon or you provide for the child, then you're on the hook even if the real father is found down the road (this happened to someone I know).

But there has to be a defense for men in this case. The option must be on the table for a man who believes (or shit, has proof) of a wife or SO's infidelity. Paternity tests are illegal in France, and the same I believe goes for Germany.

"Mommy's baby. Daddy's? Maybe."

[DMAC]

Originally Posted by notorious

JFC


On what backwards ****ing planet does that make any sense?

The planet of Texas.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Doesn't everyone know this is part of the deal?

Whatever you accumulate in your time together, you split evenly when one person decides its over. Doesn't matter that its one persons fault. That they want to run off with their secretary, bang the pool boy etc.

Not saying its right, but its been that way 30-40 years now. You don't like it, get a pre-nuptial agreement. I bet bringing that subject up will go over real well.

I'm WAY more concerned with the welfare check than splitting assets. My wife and I just did talk about it. She's as pissed as I am. I chose wisely and we have no kids. I'm not mad for me, I'm mad for KC Jones.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by notorious

JFC


On what backwards ****ing planet does that make any sense?

Courts always find that the best interests of a child take precedence over all others.

It's better to have a cuckold father than no father at all.

And the fact that a dude shells out for a kid without knowing whether it is his or not implies he is okay with this fact.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by notorious

JFC


On what backwards ****ing planet does that make any sense?

The court has ruled that it is in the interest of society for the child to be provided for. If you're the one supposed to be doing the providing then you're on the hook.

The guy I know had a chick say the kid was his and then didn't get in touch with him for almost 4 years. He got served and didn't properly contest it (he's ****ing stupid) and now he owes a shit load of back child support (and it still hasn't been determined if the kid is actually his).

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Originally Posted by Steron

It's cheaper to off her.

Fixed