Skip to main content

View Diary: FL Teabag Legislator: Rich Men who Screw Around Will Now Be Protected (174 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Family Law needs reform (0+ / 0-)

    Like it or not preditory family law practice is a reality.

    If a woman devotes her life to being a housewife she certainly is entitled to half the assets (including retirement accounts) accrued during the marriage and a transitional monthly stipend - but beyond that divorced housewives are adults and need to eventually be self supportive like adults.

    A marriage is not a thing you can retire and collect a perpetuity from.  It is not a business decision.  

    The reality is that the overwhelming amount of divorces are pursued by women (nearly 70% overall and 90% in college educated couples).

    Why is that?  Is it because men are cads?  Hardly.  It's because of the clear financial advantage women enjoy in family law court.  

    When marriages get tough, there simply is no financial incentive for women to try to make it work.  They generally retain control of the children, get half (or more) of the assets and get a monthly check.  Afterwards they are free, obviously, to find another mate and add his earning power to their household income.  They enjoy the ex-husband's money and the current man's money.  What a deal, huh?  

    The financial considerations should be nuetral in divorce.  These arguments about the shenanigans of rich men (the behavior of which I admit is dubious), cause real harm to men who are not rich.  Each former spouse is entitled to being able to provide a home for themselves and their children and it is the best interests of the children to have free access to each home.  Putting all the eggs into the basket of one of the former spouses undermines the goal of civil shared parenting.  It creates a situation of exploitation.

    As a divorced father I can tell you this...  I provide a comfortable home for my kids.  I shouldn't be made to provide two homes, but that is the reality.  I'm definitely not rich.  My ex-wife and her unemployed boyfriend reside in the former marital home with the children.  I have very limited visitation even though my MSA states we have "Shared Parenting Rights".  My name is still on the mortgage (but not on the real estate) and I pay child support.  The judge is unwilling to force a refinance or sale of the residence.

    My ex knows that control over the children has a financial advantage.  She routinely engages in alienation tactics in effort to perpetuate the status quo.  I barely see my 11 year old son (2 nights a month) and I haven't seen my 13 year old daughter in 2 years.  I have spent nearly $50K in attorneys fees over the course of 6 years with terrible results.  I filed a motion to try to get to see my daughter back in June.  I'm due to get a docket sounding on the 14th of December.  This is truly deplorable.  The sad fact is dads (and children's relationships with dads) are a non-factor in family law court.  

    When I hear women cry foul about divorce law I have to tell you - it doesn't seem credible.  Even though I'm sure there are women out there that get a raw deal in family court, in my experience, that is a rare event.  All I have to do is walk 5 feet out my front door before I bump into a man with a divorce horror story.  It's all too common.

    Family law is grossly slanted towards women, and because of that - children are often used as means to financial ends.  Divorce is incentivized because of the gains inherent to the process.  Efforts to reform family law court should not be patently branded as anti-women.  Family law as it is now has failed my children.  It has enabled my ex-wife to use them as pawns against me.  The extent of the damage being done to them is frightening to me.  I am powerless to prevent it.  

    It's high time the members of the Kos community recognize that blindly prioritizing women's rights in family law court allows for some very undesirable results.  I would never ask the community to roll back the advances of women's rights.  I only want practical intelligent discussions.  Family Law reform is necessary.  Would I do it exactly as this tea bagging rep is proposing?  No, but that doesn't mean the discussion should not occur.

    Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

    by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:07:45 AM PST

    •  Oh, look, another whiny MRA (0+ / 0-)

      who is probably fine with women doing the bulk of the childcare... until the judge decides that, therefore, she should get custody.

      If you want courts to consider both parents as equally good canddidates for full custody, work on changing gender roles, rather than whiiiiiiiining on the minority of occasions when Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.

      BTW, not all courts favor the woman. And you can read upthread the comments from Blue Armadillo and others about men who owe their children money, and owe their wives for sacrificing their careers or career potential to the husbands' career, earning six figures yet finding all sorts of creative ways to duck their obligations.

      •  I'm not defending the bad characters (0+ / 0-)

        Nor am I against changing gender roles.  You assume I am some boorish neanderthal wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  That isn't the case.

        The simple fact is there are people like me out there who have gotten exploited through the family law court system.  

        It's not such a small minority either.  The only thing that prevents a woman from manipulating the family law system to her favor in many cases is her own conscience.

        Gratefully, there is a goodly amount of women out there who understand how dangerous parental alienation is to children.  

        Unfortunately, there are those that are too obsessively self-absorbed to understand the consequences of their destructive behaviors.  The court should recognize these situations for what they are.  It's not much to ask for.

        You know it could be possible to protect BOTH women AND men from preditory family law practice.  There is no reason for anyone to be exploited by poorly written law.

        I'm not saying throw all women to the wolves in family court.  Don't interpret my intentions as such.  I'm saying there are women that definitely abuse the system and the consequences are real.

        You calling me whiny tells me that I hit an exposed nerve.  What is your intention?  To allow such destructive behavior to continue without consequence?  It's proven that malignant parents often cause severe psychological damage to children.

        This is no small matter to dismiss.  This is a real problem.  

        Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

        by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:17:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the reality is (0+ / 0-)

        the women who are stay at home moms/spouses are a dwindling minority.

        Gender roles ARE changing.  

        My fiancee and I do a very good job of equally sharing the responsibility of caring for our 2 year old.  

        I cook, clean, give baths, change and dress, read stories, play make believe, etc...

        We don't all spend our time drinking beer, watching football, throwing orders around and put our feet up...

        The modern family doesn't work that way.  The latest generation of women won't tolerate it in most part - and good for them for demanding better of their mates.

        As a father, I want to actively rear my children and be there for them every step of the way - and show them about household responsibilities and mutual respect for all family members...

        You seem to be advocating protecting a very small, shrinking segment of the population (ex-wives of affluent men) at the expense of people like me - and their children.

        Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

        by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:34:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site