roadracer
recently joined
Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 16
|
|
I am struggling with the issue of whether to divorce. If not for the children, it would be no-brainer.
I've already established that it is highly unlikely my wife will support joint custody, and I already know the likely outcome of the trial will result her getting custody since I don't spend the most amount of time with the kids. Yay for me for having a SERIOUS life and earning the sole family income. I might as well be the victim and suffer from my efforts to support the family by losing my children, eh?
Questions: 1) When is enough, enough. My wife refuses to work with me to solve family issues. She expects me to bend over, but won't negotiate to my favor on family matters. When does a man know when to quit, file for divorce, and suffer to impending loss of his children?
2) How can I save my children from becoming hateful of me for giving up? How can I make sure they know, when they're older (oldest is 3) that they were not a reason for the divorce, that daddy couldn't be happy because he and mommy couldn't work together?
|
matart1
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/01/05
Posts: 2798
|
|
you do yourself and the children a disservice to stay in a marriage just because it may be the right thing to do. wouldn't it kind of send mixed signals that this would be kind of how they should be as adults. well maybe that is overkill but I watched my aunt with a horrible marriage that her husband treated their kids and her horribly and I have never seen their daughter rise beyond the thinking that she should deserve better if you know what I mean. it could just be that is just the luck of how her life has been also so who really knows..
why couldn't you file for divorce and ask for joint custody..??
does your state only require one custodial parent..??
I would stress that you want 50/50 and nothing less. it is shamefull that be responsible actually goes against you in court but the longer you stay married like this the worse it will be.
but first ask yourself if you and your spouse have done everything you can to salvage the marriage - but both of you have to be on board with that concept.
good luck. it would be such a harder decision to make with children involved.
--------------------
Life is a long lesson in humility.
|
Debi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 7135
|
|
"How can I make sure they know, when they're older (oldest is 3) that they were not a reason for the divorce, "
Kids that young rarely think of that. They don't remember the fighting (if there is any) when they're older. My 10yo was 3 when we divorced and asked me once if daddy and I ever lived together. I doubt they will hate you for "giving up". As long as a parent shows their child that they are loved and cared for and doesn't speak badly of the other parent they don't usually equate the divorce with themselves. Just remember.... you can't keep them from hating you for other reasons. Eventually they will hate you just because they are teenager and you dare to breathe the same air as them.. (sorry my own personal frustrations coming out there!)
"When is enough, enough"
When one person files for divorce. There is no blanket answer. No one here lives your life. Only you can make that choice.
--------------------
When we were together, you said you'd die for me. Now, I think it's time you kept your promise.
|
HO2
member
Reged: 08/14/06
Posts: 178
|
|
<Yay for me for having a SERIOUS life and earning the sole family income.
What kind of attitude is that? You lead a SERIOUS life? And people who are primary caretakers do not?
> I might as well be the victim and suffer from my efforts to support the family by losing my children, eh?
Well, it is soooooooooo easy. You do what most single divorced women do, you accept stupid jobs that are badly paid so that you can be there for your kids at any given point when the school calls , when they are sick, when there is noone for long holidays and establish yourself as the caretaker you want to be seen as.
On a less angry note: yes, you have to think of ways as to how you can show the court that you are a REAL, A SERIOUS caretaker, involved with your kids and their lives. Stop a moment and think of how you could possibly do that?
I know someone who asked his boss for a couple of home office days. I know someone else who changed into a different position with less overtime and no travel.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"What kind of attitude is that? You lead a SERIOUS life? And people who are primary caretakers do not?"
Unfortunately, in the eyes of many courts, the person who earned the money that allowed the primary caretaker to be a SAHP is looked at as less of a parent. They do not live in the real world where, of course, at least ONE parent MUST work outside the home. And in today's economy, one must work damn hard to allow one parent to stay at home.
And the reward for all that hard work? Well, you can't slow DOWN your work, cause your child support is based on it, and you then become a visitor in the child's life. The OP has a valid concern.
"Well, it is soooooooooo easy. You do what most single divorced women do, you accept stupid jobs that are badly paid so that you can be there for your kids at any given point when the school calls"
Sure, and then you are called a deadbeat, and "Voluntarily underemployed", they inpute your income at what you WERE making and your child support takes almost everything you make. When you can't pay it, you are sent to jail.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
HO2
member
Reged: 08/14/06
Posts: 178
|
|
Is that what happened to you or anyone you know?
Because I sure do not know ANYONE who had to go to prison for taking a different job that would enable them to take the kids 50 % of the time - and childsupport was next to nothing thanks to that as well. It is also hard for a woman who is only a part-time mother to argue why she cannot possibly work part-time - at least.
You and I do not live in the same country. Laws may well be different over there. But due to the many posts by divorced women who work hard and take care of kids at the same it seems to me that not everything is totally different where you live. Obviously for most having two little kids is not their free-ticket to a life of luxury and chilling financed by their exes.
Anyway, even IF things were the way you said they are:
if you know well in advance that you want to leave the marriage then I guess you can make sure to change the living situation in advance, by cutting down on your hours, taking over more at home and making sure your wife can and will work. This way you establish a status quo that is favorable for custody and alimony well before you take your spouse to court. Don't you agree?
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
[quote] Is that what happened to you or anyone you know?
-----> Well its not really about who I know (or who Gr8dad knows) just that it exists. I don't know anyone on crack but there's a crack addiction problem out there. So yes, deadbeat parents are a problem, imputation of income happens, CS enforcement by threatened jailtime is the norm.
Because I sure do not know ANYONE who had to go to prison for taking a different job that would enable them to take the kids 50 % of the time - and childsupport was next to nothing thanks to that as well.
----> Almost all divorce settlements for breadwinners are based on maximum earning potential. They can take a lower paying job, but the obligations are based on the higher paying job they're qualified for. Almost always, regardless of who you know. Sounds like you only know SAHMs or something like that.
It is also hard for a woman who is only a part-time mother to argue why she cannot possibly work part-time - at least.
----> Agreed. Yet my ex did. Many do. I'd say most but I don't know for sure.
You and I do not live in the same country. Laws may well be different over there. But due to the many posts by divorced women who work hard and take care of kids at the same it seems to me that not everything is totally different where you live. Obviously for most having two little kids is not their free-ticket to a life of luxury and chilling financed by their exes.
----> But that's an overstatement. It is a ticket to getting supported post-divorce under the guise of "needing it for the children" when they want it for themselves. I don't think it typically results in a life of luxury (though sometimes it does; USUALLY it does when the breadwinner is wealthy) IOW, the only reason its not a common path to a life of luxury is that there aren't that many rich breadwinners out there to fleece. If there were tons of millionaires, there'd be tons of millionaire fleecing. Instead, there's a bunch of middle class breadwinners getting fleeced with the same excuses, just the $ amounts are lower.
Anyway, even IF things were the way you said they are:
if you know well in advance that you want to leave the marriage then I guess you can make sure to change the living situation in advance, by cutting down on your hours, taking over more at home and making sure your wife can and will work. This way you establish a status quo that is favorable for custody and alimony well before you take your spouse to court. Don't you agree?
----> That's quite the manipulative way to try to get what you want, sure. Except, everybody who I've seen on here with such notions is derided as a bastard/bum for considering it. SAHPs tend to live in a little cocoon of praise and fake martyrdom for doing the same, however.
[/quote]
|
HO2
member
Reged: 08/14/06
Posts: 178
|
|
Almost all divorce settlements for breadwinners are based on maximum earning potential. They can take a lower paying job, but the obligations are based on the higher paying job they're qualified for. Almost always, regardless of who you know. Sounds like you only know SAHMs or something like that.
----> Boy, are you always that way? I know SAHFs as well. Imagine that!!!! !!!! Fact is most of the people I know are highly qualified, with equal earning potential.
-------Is it possible that most of you angry guys here were led by your second brain into marriage, choosing women with no qualification and no ambitions in life.....and now it is the LAWS' fault you chose to father children with a partner like that?
Agreed. Yet my ex did. Many do. I'd say most but I don't know for sure.
------Why do you think that is? Because most women dream of their life stagnating , never getting anywhere and being poorer than the average person out there? I realize that you probably only know women like that, but that just goes to show that you should start hanging out with a different bunch of people.
That's quite the manipulative way to try to get what you want, sure.
-----Manipulative? To make a serious effort to be there as a caretaker for your kids is a manipulative step? This statement reveals more about you than you think.
It is clear that you say that because you cannot imagine any man seriously wanting to sacrifice a career ONLY to stay home and change diapers. If a man does that he must have BAD intentions, right? Love for his kids and not wanting to miss most of their childhood could not possibly be the reason, could it? Guess what I took the statements of the poster seriously. I thought he was scared of losing his kids and cared more about the kids than about $$$$. So I did not think of making time for your kids as a manipulative step.
Edited by HO2 (08/23/08 01:21 PM)
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Hmmmm...
[quote] Boy, are you always that way? I know SAHFs as well. Imagine that!!!! !!!! Fact is most of the people I know are highly qualified, with equal earning potential. [/quote]
Am I which way? Accurate about settlements and imputation? Yes. Accurate that quantities of personal examples don't matter? Yes. You're saying nobody goes to prison for taking a lower paying job to enable 50% kid time, right? Well, there are many single breadwinners that don't have that choice. Their court-ordered settlements are based on a max earning potential; a part-time/new job prevents them from meeting their SS or CS obligations.
SAHFs are in the same boat as SAHMs. If you know high-earning divorced people, then you likely know that their obligation is NOT typically based on partial earning potential to enable more parenting time.
[quote] Is it possible that most of you angry guys here were led by your second brain into marriage, choosing women with no qualification and no ambitions in life.....and now it is the LAWS' fault you chose to father children with a partner like that? [/quote]
I suppose so. No, it's not the laws' fault that anybody has kids with anybody. But the laws should be set up to work for each scenario, even when there is a higher earner divorcing a lower earner. I don't think I get your point.
[quote] Why do you think that is? Because most women dream of their life stagnating , never getting anywhere and being poorer than the average person out there? I realize that you probably only know women like that, but that just goes to show that you should start hanging out with a different bunch of people. [/quote]
You're asking why I think my ex, who works part time, argues to not work full time? It's NOT because she believes being provided for is a stagnant life. Rather, she wants a relatively easy ride. It's much less work to partially support yourself and nobody else, than it is to support yourself, your children, and partially your ex. So, that's what she wants (to be supported). And she wants to be praised for it for being there for the children, etc.
Also, she can attempt to deny parenting time to me "in the interests of the children" because she has more free time to be with them. Also, she can minimize the residential time deviation on CS because of the denied parenting time. Vicious little circle the system allows for: the less she works the more $ obligation I have. Also, the less she works the more time she has for "parenting" so the more she tries to reduce my parenting time. The less parenting time I have, the more $ obligation I have.
[quote] Manipulative? To make a serious effort to be there as a caretaker for your kids is a manipulative step? This statement reveals more about you than you think. [/quote]
Hey, you're the one advocating deceiving your spouse for a year to establish a "status quo" so that when you do leave them, you get a better settlement. Yes, that is undeniably manipulative and unethical.
[quote] It is clear that you say that because you cannot imagine any man seriously wanting to sacrifice a career ONLY to stay home and change diapers. If a man does that he must have BAD intentions, right? Love for his kids and not wanting to miss most of their childhood could not possibly be the reason, could it? Guess what I took the statements of the poster seriously. I thought he was scared of losing his kids and cared more about the kids than about $$$$. So I did not think of making time for your kids as a manipulative step. [/quote]
It's all in HOW you do it. Nice try, but bathing oneself in "I'm doing it for the kids" isn't actually effective teflon. If what you're doing is misleading your spouse for a year, you're just rationalizing dishonesty.
Sure, you're right. It likely does improve your financial divorce settlement; it still never becomes ethical behavior. Playing dirty can pay off in divorce court, no doubt. But you can't play dirty and also have your integrity.
|
Kidscraftzone
recently joined
Reged: 09/05/08
Posts: 6
|
|
You are probably doing damage by staying in a marriage that you don't want to be in. Kids sense these things even if you are not fighting in front of them. Hug your kids and spend quality time with them. That is all you can do.
--------------------
Kids Craft Zone, kids crafts,kids bible craftsand much more!
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
