| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/15/07 10:57 PM |
Divorce Issues
|
This post may be less relevant to this forum but I am putting it here because my impression is this forum is lively, insightful and diverse with many knowledgeable no-nonsense members. Here is the story.
I have been married for close to 20 years. Even though I have an advanced degree I have been a SAHP for reasons related to the nature of my STBX career, we have been living in small villages and moving too frequently for me to get into anything meaningful. The plan was I tough it out and when we finally settle in a big city I can start doing something. But STBX is calling it off now and timing it to inflict maximum financial damage on me.
We have a 12 years old daughter. We are fighting for custody. As a SAHP I understand that my chance for primary custody is great. The problem is the STBX is now manipulating and brainwashing the kid so she can bring her before the judge and have her state that she wants to end up with STBX. I have a great loving relation with the kid. Our bond is unbreakable, but kids can be manipulated. But the STBX manipulations have been on full gear. The kid is under the impression that if she stays with me she will be too poor, if she goes with STBX she will be super rich. In a year STBX will be making in the range of 400K.
What can I do to get custody while minimizing the psychological damage to the kid from a lowly STBX manipulations?
The other question is STBX now makes about 80K. What is fair child support and spousal support now and after her income goes up a year later to around 400k and for how long?
The last question is we have high credit card debt and a student loan in my name. I took that loan only because she had no income at that time while she was preparing for her professional exams. At that time I made enough income to cover the cost of my education and got the student loan only to support her obtain professional license. Right now I am out of work, in my mid 40s, and in all likelihood will need to go back to school to get up to-date and join the work force. This will take time. Even when I join the work force, my STBX will be making close to 10 times what I will be making. How is the debt to be allocated? It doesn't seem fair that I get 50% of it. Any ideas will be appreciated.
| Miranda |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/16/07 11:05 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Are you in the U.S.?
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/16/07 11:11 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Yes, I am in the U.S.
| yregna |
| (veteran) |
| 04/17/07 12:56 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Why don't you explain why you stayed home with the kids instead of giving the BS excuse.
Why do you expect to get a ton of money for performing childcare ?
| Debbie_L |
| (Pooh-Bah) |
| 04/17/07 01:18 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Yregna, there are lots of stay at home dads nowadays. Welcome to the 21st century - troll.
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/17/07 02:07 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
yregna,
I stayed home because we moved from a small village to another every couple of years because that was the only she could build her career. Where we lived there were only churches, a hospital and sometimes a Wal-Mart. My skills are marketable only in big cities. I could have gone and got employed in a different city. This was unthinkable because my STBX worked 3 shifts style, many of them over nights. I couldn't leave my child sleeping with a stranger 2 or 3 days a week. My STBX refused to let me move to a city and take the kid with me.
Family is about compromise, cooperation and sacrifice, or at least that is how I understand it. If each partner pulls in a different direction pursuing his/her own private best interests, we will not have families to raise healthy kids. If each parent goes where it suits him, we will raise generations of children orphaned by the absence of one parent from their life at a tender and formative age. Luckily, some among us are capable of putting their kids' best interests before their own and take substantial risk for them. But this is the type of work/sacrifice that society does not seem to appreciate enough. Sometimes the hardest job is to be unemployed, but overworked zombies who hate their jobs cannot understand this.
| yregna |
| (veteran) |
| 04/18/07 11:18 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
That sounds great except for ONE THING...
I was the one who went out in the raw competetive world and earned the income for the other "parent" to stay home. I was the one who made the agreement " You can stay home for now but when the kids are in school full time, you need to help me with the bills "
Guess what ? Turns out that risk is a LOT larger than I ever anticipated. Even though I took many precautions, the law says if the SAH Parent decides NEVER to go back to work, you have to support them FOR LIFE ? That is a pretty huge risk for this great societal goal of family and good kids and such...Far too great of a risk.
NO man should do it..EVER. Women should work, Men should stay at home with the kids. Always...Later when the kids are in school, you'll have plenty of free time on your hands...Join a book club, become an author, join a gym, buy a boat and go fishing. If your wife says boo...Divorce her and you'll be sitting pretty for the rest of your life. THAT IS THE LAW !! ( Don't forget to take the letter opener when you divide things up, let her have the check book )
| Cinder2 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/18/07 11:38 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Just out of curiosity....
You say you lived in small "villages" where there was at most some churches, a hospital, and a Wal-Mart. What business is your ex in that she can earn $400K in such an area?
Cinder
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 08:25 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Cinder2: Wal-Mart employees and priests do not make that much, you guess the rest.
Yregna: You 've got it wrong. Being a SAHP has nothing to do with permanent support. And yes, of course, in an ideal world men and women should work, but sometimes one of them has to stay home for some compelling practical reasons. Not every SAHP is a lazy bum, some of them are fine people (Susan is an example). And not any spouse of a SAHP is an angel who is exploited pre and post divorce. Some of them are, or become, jerks and abuse the trust and the ensuing power imbalance. In many cases the breadwinner gets out of the marriage with a solid career and enjoy all its economic, social and psychological benefits while the SAHP gets out of it older, with rusty skills and has to start all over again and face age discrimination and all the rest of the disadvantages. Just the psychological pain of this is indescribable. Raising kids and sacrificing for them is still neither rewarded; nor valued, an index of how human our society is, but thanks heaven it has its own rewarding joy, a priceless one at that. Good post divorce parents who care and/or pay child support deserve to be honored as well.
It is wrong for us to see every case through the prism of our own experience. Cases come in infinite variety, that is why human judges decide, not a computer program. We do not live in a world where anything come in neat tiny packages for us to pass judgment automatically. The world is a complex place and each case stands to be judged on its own merits.
| Miranda |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 08:30 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I guess she is a doctor?
The reason why I asked if you were in the U.S. is because of your diction and vocabulary. I really have never heard an Amercian say "villages" as in a place they live. Now when I lived overseas, everyone used the word villages versus town, city, etc..
| Susanf31 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 09:03 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
In many cases the breadwinner gets out of the marriage with a solid career and enjoy all its economic, social and psychological benefits while the SAHP gets out of it older, with rusty skills and has to start all over again and face age discrimination and all the rest of the disadvantages. Just the psychological pain of this is indescribable.
+++++++++
Wow! What I've been trying to get across for years...you just summed up nicely...in a nutshell.
You really hit the nail on the head!
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 10:53 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Yes, Susan, by staying at home your life time earning potential takes a good hit, depending on the length of it and other factors. At any age from then on you will make much less than what you could make had you not stayed at home. Economists and accountants can reasonably accurately calculate this loss in life time earning capacity. Add to that the psycho-social loss and staying at home looks like the worst disaster that happened to you in life. The only redeeming factor to mitigate the disaster is your kids have had a good start in life, and you cannot put a price on this.
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:14 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Economists and accountants can reasonably accurately calculate this loss in life time earning capacity.
--> And your point is what?
---> First of all, you're forgetting that you CHOOSE to be a SAHP. Second...the whole "loss" thing is a big pile of bull shyt unless you were stupid enough to stay home past the time you could have got your ass back in the game and I'm talking you would have had to be stay home for 10+ years and now be in your mid to late forties.
Add to that the psycho-social loss and staying at home looks like the worst disaster that happened to you in life.
---> More psedo-psycho bullshyt!
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:16 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Why didn't you learn to adapt your skills during all those years you were a SAHP? For the 3 years that I stayed home, I altered my skills, began to work from home before I returned to the outside workforce, and make more now than I did prior to leaving the workforce. It's not like you didn't have time to do that while your child was in school daily for the last 7/8 years. If your current skills weren't viable in the markets you lived in, then wouldn't it have been prudent to find ones that would match those markets?
I understand the points you present, but it's not like you were a helpless waif, with no ability to have self determination as to which direction your life went in. In taking on the role you did, you have to accept the repurcussions that result from making those decisions, good or bad unless you purposely chose to ignore the entire realm of possibilities and only focused on things with a very myopic view.
| Susanf31 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:27 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Spinnder, based on your own views of your mother and the disrespect you seem to have for her for "only working parttime and holding your father for CS ransom", it's clear you really don't have a grasp of what it's like to raise children. I don't think you have any kids of your own, right? Just one SD?
Anyway, I sorta agree with you IN THIS DAY AND AGE we should be encouraging our daughters to be entirely self-sufficient and to not have kids they aren't capable of raising on their own.
However, I don't think it's a myopic view to have believe in your marriage and yoru family unit and do what's best for the family. Often times, when you have young children and a spouse building a big career, taking time to go to school and what-have-you doesn't easily fit.
Yes, I'd advise all women to MAKE IT fit in this day and age. But too many times a SAHP will put their own best interest on the back burner for a few years...obviously with the intention of returning to school or the workforce once the kids get of school age. But even then, if one spouse's career is playing 2nd to the other spouse's career, it's EXTREMELY hard to build a career when you are taking time off for sick kids and school and issues like that.
Again, you've never been the parent of a young child as far as I know...so I really don't expect you to understand it. But I work in an office enviroment and see these single mom's trying to build a career and they have it soooo much harder than the other people with SAHM spouses or spouses who do the primary child-rearing. My boss is one of them.
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:41 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Yes, I'd advise all women to MAKE IT fit in this day and age. But too many times a SAHP will put their own best interest on the back burner for a few years...obviously with the intention of returning to school or the workforce once the kids get of school age. But even then, if one spouse's career is playing 2nd to the other spouse's career, it's EXTREMELY hard to build a career when you are taking time off for sick kids and school and issues like that.
---> Either way, it's still your choice, so why should someone else have to pay the rest of their life for that choice?
| Susanf31 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:48 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
---> Either way, it's still your choice, so why should someone else have to pay the rest of their life for that choice?
+++++++
THey shouldn't have to pay the rest of their life. They should have to pay an amount that makes the sacrifice one spouse made equitable to the career sacrifice the other spouse didn't have to make.
My boss makes over $150k a year. He does nothing but work. His wife does EVERYTHING else. They've been married 20 years. THey are lovely people, have a lovely family. Their boys are active in all kinds of things. They take spanish lessons, track, soccer, etc... None of those things could have been accomplished if boss's wife was working the way he does.
They are a family UNIT and the benefits of their arrangment are obvious. But if they were to divorce, it wouldn't be fair taht only she suffer the financial consequences.
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:52 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
None of those things could have been accomplished if boss's wife was working the way he does.
---> And none of those things could have been accomplished if the boss was NOT working the way HE does. Again...it's a TWO-WAY street...he works the hours he does so his wife can stay home and the kids can be involved in all those activities. Otherwise...he could just work NORMAL hours and spend that time with the kids.
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 12:13 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Miranda: You are right, I lived all over the world hopping from one country to another.
Gecko: It is a joint decision, not the SAHP unilateral choice. And the point is the loss can be calculated, meaning it is real, and calculable. What more do you need to see that staying at home is an expensive decision and only fools make it lightly. At least give SAHPs moral credit for being unselfish, trusting and can risk their own well being because family and kids mean something to them. As for adapting my skills, well I have three degrees and there is no degree left in my field I can obtain. The only issues are updating my skills and getting into the job market much older and possibly be bossed by kids I could have taught.
Anyway, you seem to be so one-sided that I suspect you are in a lot of pain for paying CS and/or SS. If so, please grow up and out of the delusional narcissism of believing that the world imitates your case and revolves around it. A little humility will not hurt. But forgive me if I am wrong.
The other thing is I do use obscenities, shyt and the rest, now and then but I never mistake them for an argument. Use the language you like, but don't forget to argue your position.
| Susanf31 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 12:23 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Sigh, sigh, sigh...it really seems to be "no win" for women. If a woman dumpes her baby in daycare at 6 weeks old, she and her H are accused of being greedy...putting money before their kids. If mom (usually it's the woman) stays home, she's accused of being a lazy SAHP. How can she win?
Personally, I CAN'T STAND to see babies in daycare. I just hate it. I really hate to see any child under 4 in daycare. I admire families who find a way to keep their kids out of daycare for as long as possible. I also think there should be some financial protections in place for the parent who does forgo some of their primary working years to be home with the kids. (i.e. alimony.)
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 12:29 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I think Gecko does not realize that upon the dissolution of the marriage the breadwinner walks out with his career advanced during the marriage. Home making and raising children are hard work, but they are terribly de-skilling and taxing to the self-esteem, unless you believe it is fair for every SAHP to become a maid post-divorce, because these are the skills s/he nurtured during the marriage. I don't know what is difficult about grasping the obvious fact that the breadwinner walks out of marriage with skills and position that are far superior to what he had at the time of the marriage while the SAHP gets out of it with much lower marketable skills and earning potential than s/he had at the time of the marriage. And this imbalance needs to be addressed. Most of the time SAHPs get partial redress, but that is better than the penniless ridicule Gecko would throw at them if he were in charge.
| Debbie_L |
| (Pooh-Bah) |
| 04/19/07 12:35 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Gecko is a woman, and as far as I know is not "anti spousal support".
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 12:42 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Anyway, you seem to be so one-sided that I suspect you are in a lot of pain for paying CS and/or SS. If so, please grow up and out of the delusional narcissism of believing that the world imitates your case and revolves around it. A little humility will not hurt. But forgive me if I am wrong.
---> LOL...you accuse me of delusional narcissim and tell me to grow up and then ask me to forgive you if you are wrong. Well you're wrong to a certain extent...I was a SAHP for half of my marriage and received both CS/SS. Then later we switched custody and now I pay CS, but I am in no "pain" for doing so.
---> As for "growing up"...oh puh-leeeeeeze, I probably have underwear older than you! I've been in this game called "family law" for a very long time now...both personally and professionally.
The other thing is I do use obscenities, shyt and the rest, now and then but I never mistake them for an argument. Use the language you like, but don't forget to argue your position.
---> Oh my...I can see that I will need to dust off my thesaurus if I am to exchange rhetoric with you.
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 12:46 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Sweetheart...before you make a further ass of yourself, it would behoove you to find out something about the person you are trying to insult.
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 12:53 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
gecko: Gecko: I am interested in your opinion and that is all I need to know. I was not wrong, you pay CS.
So you stayed at home, received CS and SS. That means you believe SS is sometimes and to a certain extent justifiable. So why are you so dismissive and belittling of people who are in the position you were once in?
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:05 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I was not wrong, you pay CS.
---> But you were...I never/do not pay SS and I am not in "pain". But as I said, you were wrong to a certain extent...you got one out of three.
So you stayed at home, received CS and SS. That means you believe SS is sometimes and to a certain extent justifiable. So why are you so dismissive and belittling of people who are in the position you were once in?
---> I'm not dismissive or belittling...I just believe in accepting responsibility for one's choices.
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 01:16 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Gecko: You say "it would behoove you to find out something about the person you are trying to insult"
So how much did you find about me before delivering the insult that my opinion is bullshyt?
And no, I was not questioning your linguistic prowess, I was questioning the lack of argument and your knee-jerk reaction to cases of SS. This one-size fits all position does not do justice to the diversity of the real world.
And it doesn't really matter much whether you are a woman or a man, what matters is your opinion. I apologize for confusing your gender if you are too particular about that.
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 01:26 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Gecko you say "I'm not dismissive or belittling...I just believe in accepting responsibility for one's choices".
I do agree with you completely here. I do own my decision. I took it knowing that I am putting myself in a vulnerable position and that it can backfire big time. I would do it again if that is the only I can be there for my kids during their most formative years. I take responsibility for my decision, but that doesn't mean I should not get some support at least till I can stand on my feet.
And how about custody? I am a good dad by any standard. Do I deserve to be the primary custodian because I have been the main attachment figure and have stronger bond with the kid? Is the burden of proof custody-wise on my STBX?
I do appreciate your tough responses sometimes, I am here for a reality check not be cuddled.
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:28 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
So how much did you find about me before delivering the insult that my opinion is bullshyt?
---> Hmmmmm. The difference here is that you were insulting me as a person; I on the other hand...disagreed with your statement which had nothing to do with you as a person.
I apologize for confusing your gender if you are too particular about that.
---> What does my gender have to do with anything? I never mentioned whether I was male or female...only that I had received SS/CS and now pay CS.
| Susanf31 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:32 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I'm a little confused, Gecko. If you believe you are 100% responsible for the choices you've made, then why did you accept SS?
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:35 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I take responsibility for my decision, but that doesn't mean I should not get some support at least till I can stand on my feet.
---> I am not against spousal support and/or alimony, but it has to be balanced.
And how about custody? I am a good dad by any standard. Do I deserve to be the primary custodian because I have been the main attachment figure and have stronger bond with the kid?
---> No. Think of it this way...should your STBX get the larger share of the assets because she was the breakwinner?
I do appreciate your tough responses sometimes, I am here for a reality check not be cuddled.
---> LOL...you definately won't get cuddled by me. ;)
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:38 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I'm a little confused, Gecko. If you believe you are 100% responsible for the choices you've made, then why did you accept SS?
---> I never said I was 100% responsible.
| Susanf31 |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:46 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
fisrt you say this:---> I'm not dismissive or belittling...I just believe in accepting responsibility for one's choices.
Then you say that you aren't 100% responsible. So do you or do you not accept 100% responsibility for your choices?
| Gecko |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 01:56 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
fisrt you say this:---> I'm not dismissive or belittling...I just believe in accepting responsibility for one's choices.
Then you say that you aren't 100% responsible. So do you or do you not accept 100% responsibility for your choices?
---> Huh? The choice to be a SAHP is a JOINT decision...one can be held responsible for one's contribution to that decison without being held responsible for the whole decision.
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 08:49 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Gecko says "LOL...you definately won't get cuddled by me. ;)"
You broke my heart, why so cruel:-)
| Man |
| (recently joined) |
| 04/19/07 08:51 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
How much is a housewife worth?
Laura Barton
Thursday March 8, 2007
Guardian
It was in her 1964 book Sixpence in Her Shoe that Phyllis McGinley observed
that to be a housewife is "sometimes an ungrateful job if it is looked on
only as a job. Regarded as a profession, it is the noblest as it is the most
ancient of the catalogue. Let none persuade us differently or the world is
lost indeed."
John Charman might bear this in mind if he is to reach even a vague
understanding of what it is to be a housewife. A self-made insurance tycoon
worth £131m, Charman and his wife Beverley began divorce proceedings in
2004, after 27 years of marriage. Last year, the high court decided that Mrs
Charman was worth £48m (37% of the couple's assets). Mr Charman this week
appealed that she is deserving of only £20m, with his legal representatives
pointedly referring to her as a "housewife". The decision, he argued,
"failed to have proper regard for the contribution I made by being the only
one to create the wealth".
Really? More than a decade ago, a report by the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics stated that to employ all the cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs and
nannies needed to meet a housewife's annual contribution to the home would
cost $120,900 (£62,590). A fair settlement would also take into account a
woman's loss of earnings from the career she abandoned - Mrs Charman, for
example, was a civil servant. It is also arguable that Mrs Charman's
financial worth is greater still, as without her contribution to the
household, her husband could not have pursued his immense fortune.
"This is a very unusual case," says Katherine Rake of the Fawcett Society,
which campaigns for gender equality, "so we wouldn't comment specifically on
it, but we would say that divorce has a negative impact on women's economic
circumstances that lasts much longer than it does for men."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
| googledad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:19 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
Dueling British articles :
British judge strikes blow to alimony
Posted on April 14, 2007
from Staff Reports
A British judge has ruled ex-husbands can not be expected to compensate their ex-wives for future earnings.
The judge ruled in England, which is known for favoring women in divorce proceedings, that a baker identified as Mr. H does not have to give Mrs. H a share of his future earnings after their divorce, The Times of London reported Saturday.
Mrs. H, who was awarded nearly $26 million in cash and assets in the divorce, argued she should also be entitled to a share of her ex-husband's future profits after their marriage fell apart due to his infidelity. She gave up her career as a teacher after their marriage to raise the couple's children.
"This is not a case in which the wife gave up a career that was likely to provide substantial income or monetary reward," the judge said. "She was a teacher."
The judge said Mrs. H's contribution to her husband's status as a high earner was small.
"His high level of income is primarily based on his talents, hard work and good fortune in pursuing his career," he said.
Copyright Market-Day.net/United Press Intl
| googledad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/19/07 11:40 PM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
To answer your original questions ( my my how diverting the arguments have been ) , you can request alimony base on your STBX's current ( not future ) income :
(1) In every action brought, either for a divorce or for a separation, the court may require either party to pay alimony for the suitable maintenance of the adverse party, to pay such sums as shall be deemed proper and necessary to conserve any real or personal property owned by the parties or either of them, and to pay any sums necessary to enable the adverse party to carry on or defend the action, during its pendency. It may award costs against either party and award execution for the same, or it may direct such costs to be paid out of any property sequestered, or in the power of the court, or in the hands of a receiver.
You should also be aware of Michigan's rather unique 100 mile rule :
722.31 Legal residence change of child whose parental custody governed by court order.
Sec. 11.
(1) A child whose parental custody is governed by court order has, for the purposes of this section, a legal residence with each parent. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a parent of a child whose custody is governed by court order shall not change a legal residence of the child to a location that is more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time of the commencement of the action in which the order is issued.
(2) A parent's change of a child's legal residence is not restricted by subsection (1) if the other parent consents to, or if the court, after complying with subsection (4), permits, the residence change. This section does not apply if the order governing the child's custody grants sole legal custody to 1 of the child's parents.
(3) This section does not apply if, at the time of the commencement of the action in which the custody order is issued, the child's 2 residences were more than 100 miles apart. This section does not apply if the legal residence change results in the child's 2 legal residences being closer to each other than before the change.
(4) Before permitting a legal residence change otherwise restricted by subsection (1), the court shall consider each of the following factors, with the child as the primary focus in the court's deliberations:
(a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.
(b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and whether the parent's plan to change the child's legal residence is inspired by that parent's desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.
(c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child's schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification.
(d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support obligation.
(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
(5) Each order determining or modifying custody or parenting time of a child shall include a provision stating the parent's agreement as to how a change in either of the child's legal residences will be handled. If such a provision is included in the order and a child's legal residence change is done in compliance with that provision, this section does not apply. If the parents do not agree on such a provision, the court shall include in the order the following provision: “A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with section 11 of the “Child Custody Act of 1970”, 1970 PA 91, MCL 722.31.”.
(6) If this section applies to a change of a child's legal residence and the parent seeking to change that legal residence needs to seek a safe location from the threat of domestic violence, the parent may move to such a location with the child until the court makes a determination under this section.
| gr8Dad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/20/07 12:19 AM |
|
Kind of double dipping, wouldn't you say?
|
"More than a decade ago, a report by the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics stated that to employ all the cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs and
nannies needed to meet a housewife's annual contribution to the home would
cost $120,900 (£62,590). A fair settlement would also take into account a
woman's loss of earnings from the career she abandoned "
If you want the PAY for those positions, you cannot also then ask for lost earnings.
BTW, the "number" they come up with is the cost of PROFESSIONALS. For example, my wife drives the kids to ball games, school, etc. But a professional driver requires a CDL, she does not.
| gr8Dad |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/20/07 12:24 AM |
|
Also, why is it...
|
..that the wage earner is supposed to keep paying the lower wage earner, so he/she can get back on their feet, ei have the ability to earn more money, yet the SAHP is not required todo the thing THEY did.
I would love to see THIS kind of divorce settlement:
"Mr. Smith, you will pay, in spousal support, $X of dollars, for X amount of time, in order to give your ex spouse time to learn a new trade, or advance in the workforce.
Mrs. Smith, YOU will go to your ex husbands house, and clean it, do the laudry, and cook three meals a week, for X amount of time, in order to give your ex spouse a chance to learn to do these tasks on his own..."
Wouldn't THAT be TRULY fair?
| txks1151 |
| (enthusiast) |
| 04/20/07 01:29 AM |
|
Re: Also, why is it...
|
Yeah it would be..
But in my case, the STBX never did the above that often anyways.
| BeckaLeigh |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/20/07 08:22 AM |
|
Re: Divorce Issues
|
I agree that SAHP come out of the relaionship with less marketable skills and what-not. But, I look at it differently than most. It is my decision to stay at home and care for my family. Yes, my husband requested it, but ultimately, it was my decision. I dont want him to have to support me if we split ways.
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 04/20/07 11:02 AM |
|
Re: Kind of double dipping, wouldn't you say?
|
I always find these surveys that assign value to being a housewife utterly ridiculous.
As you said, they're attributing professional costs to a position that isn't being done by a pro in that area. Would a mother who puts a bandaid on their child get to attibute $40/hr to is as a Nurse would? Of course not.
Then this is what baffles me.
Say you have a couple where both spouses work (say myself and my wife)
Now I come home after a shift and mow the lawn. Do I get to assign Landscaping fees to that task? How about when I cook, do the laundary, clean the house, take SD to the doctor etc. Same with my wife. When she does those tasks does she get to attribute a value to them? They are after all the same tasks that a SAHP does right? So if I my wife and I do the same tasks as a SAHP does, do we get to say we have bring in value from outside the house with our jobs, and we get to assign value for everything we do in the house also? Or are these tasks only valued if done by a SAHP, and don't count if done by a working parent?