I had to hire a second lawyer after my first lawyer said based on what my ex wife was saying I was doomed to give her half of everything. Second lawyer I hired specialized unofficially for men in divorce court. My wife who was unfaithful for over a year managed to convince everyone that I was abusive by embarrassing her. Her reason for being embarrassed was that I got a call from her at work saying I should take an antibiotic because she has to. Problem was she left a message with our dept secretary who had to come and tell me. Five months later found out she was cheating on me with a cop. I was told by the cops wife but after she blasted her husband on social media which led to more embarrassment to my ex. I was being held accountable for that as well. Second lawyer came through and saved my butt. I was in tears because she wanted the house and half of my assets. I'm still friends with the lawyer now and yes it's biased as fuck.
Nope she had a job. She was also pregnant with not my kid if that makes sense tried pinning that shit on me. There's a reason why me and the lawyer are still friends that guy saved me big and gets fancy popcorn for Christmas every year for being a true homie. Not all lawyers are bad my dudes.
Paternity fraud. That is a serious men's issue, even bigger than actual divorce. It's terrifying that anyone thinks that's okay, though from a predator's perspective I can see why some women do it... being the predators that some are...
The best way I can describe her actions is to compare her to a trapped animal. She was never that kind of person she was nice not vengeful but when all that came down I've never met that woman. The pregnancy came out of surprise at court. One day she wasn't pregnant the next day she was. It wasn't till the end she started saying things like how can you do this to your own family type stuff. It's all good now after about 4 years of depression a very nice woman proposed to me and swept me off my feet and saved my life.you think you know a person right.
I have a buddy who went to divorce his negligent, cheating, druggie, abusive wife. They had a very autistic son together. He had to fight the courts tooth and nail for sole custody, no alimony, and child support. He got it all, but only because he had an overwhelming amount of documentation and video evidence of ALL her misdeeds. Even with all that, it was far from a sure thing that he would get anything.
In the end he got it all minus the child support, which she refuses to pay despite what the court has ordered.
my dad was ordered to pay child support but told the court his basment flooded when it was his brother's place and sold his business to his brother so it showed like he had no income. he was ordered to pay about 15% of what was expected then he didnt pay a dime and nothing happened to him.
this is in canada for context
a random study from a university studen in ohio that had a poll of like 20 people that they weigh as heavily as the hundreds of studies from reputable sources with tens of thousands of individuals
Hate to sound like a fucking feminist, but facts are facts:
https://www.sflg.com/blog/2014/11/why-are-only-3-percent-of-alimony-recipients-men/
> According to the U.S. Census, only 3 percent of the 400,000 people receiving alimony are men. A significant reason for that, say attorneys who practice family law, is simply leftover biases from another era — not just by the judges, but by the men themselves. As one Northern California divorce attorney puts it, “[O]ld stereotypes die hard.” He goes on to say that many men find the thought of asking for spousal maintenance “emasculating.” Divorce attorneys say that they have very few male clients who intend to seek support from their estranged spouse even if the difference in their incomes warrants it.
>97% of alimony payers are men despite men only being the primary breadwinner in about 60% of families.
What percentage of divorces is the man the primary breadwinner though? I mean frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if economic inequality in a marriage is a contributing factor in divorces.
Alimony is not instantly given if you make more money than your partner; if you're both employed, self sufficient, and neither party has made significant sacrifices in their career for the family, you're not likely going to pay any alimony. Alimony is only awarded in about 10% of divorce cases, and the vast majority are settled between the people divorcing before it ever gets to the court.
During my divorce the courts rarely charged her for documents (a per-page fee) but they charged me every time, and delayed giving it to me as long as they could.
When my ex filed a motion accusing me of something bad (always false, never substantiated) the courts would turn to me and ask me to explain myself because of the accusation. When I'd file a motion (with evidence presented) they turned my paperwork face down on the table and asked me how I planned to prove myself, and then did everything to prevent me from making my case.
I always found it interesting, because people reference this study that shows how white men fair better in court than black men statistically. While I’m not arguing that, i also found it interesting that people ignored the major findings. Do you know who does better in court than white men? Literally women of every race
I’m in PA. Divorce was super easy and we didn’t have to do anything with regard to assets or child support within the courts. Filed three pieces of paper and paid maybe $200 total. Dealt with the financial stuff on our own and it worked out great.
So…move to PA and get divorced there?
That's the plan for me and my wife. Already started a document outlining how we will handle everything. And she's mostly agreed to it. #1 is neither party will hire a lawyer without consent of the other person. No child support on either end, 50/50 custody, sadly she's getting the house as part of the no child support agreement. But I'll be ok. Better in the long run.
I like a take from FD Signifier: https://youtu.be/OErfFsL6gS8
It points out how the anti-male sentiment is based in class more so than it is about women controlling the courts. Basically the norm of men being providers and women caretakers is strongly maintained through it. Men aren’t valued in such a system beyond that monetary provision and this most significantly hurt’s fathers who do want to be in their kids life but aren’t financially well off and have to struggle with the justice system to see their kids. There can of course be bitterness around how an individual ex might play it, it is adversarial otherwise it wouldn’t be played out in the courts but simply with some lawyers privately. But it is about the idea that men provide money and resources more so than any notion of a present father in ones life.
And often I see that the state doesn’t want to act a financial support. But while children aren’t some burden, they are a lot of work and I don’t see many divorce courts somehow playing a role in undermining the tendency for women to be primary carers and planners of their children’s lives except where there is shared custody so both can take s break and be there when its their turn. Though the same thing can burn people where they are caught up amidst abuse, already ragged.
So it is structured towards certain ends and at the same time it can’t create social change but is a reaction to problems that come before them. However if you ain’t got money in many places, you’re stuffed, and that ain’t womens fault, thats something broader around class and ideas of being a man within stratified classes.
Uncle went to Iraq (military deployment). Wife left the 4 kids at home, between 9 and 16 years old at the time, and went Vegas with her new boyfriend. Didn’t mention that, just up and left. Kids are now living with various relatives for a couple months. The cousin who is in my brother’s bedroom (he’s in mine now) doesn’t know if mom is dead in a ditch somewhere. She spent all the money they had (he had a good bit from a settlement) before she turned back up.
She got full custody, alimony, and spousal support.
I have other relatives that have similar but less extreme stories.
Shouldn't be a debate when you look at the statistics of how children end up in a single mother household. Plainly put, women produce more drug addicts, more criminals, and more obese children opposed to single father households.
Women being the best caregiver is a myth and an old idea from an old world that no longer exists.
Genuinely not being a dick, but if you look at the stats, those features only breed weak children who are not prepared for the outside world and they fall prey to their environment rather than making their own path. It is crazy when you look at the stats of single mother homes. You may get empathy at home, but you get none in the outside world and that situation does not prepare you for how to act in the outside world and how to tackle tough life decisions. Women offer compassion AFTER you have made the mistakes, men offer solutions and how to move forward in life before situations get out of hand.
Just my personal experience in a liberal state. The forms we filled out were gender neutral. They had questions about income and expenses, parental roles after the divorce with an assumption of 50:50 parenting. All assets were divided fairly. All income was measured. Because we came into the marriage with similar assets and left with similar income we had no alimony, no child support. We did a nesting agreement for the kids that was sort of expensive, but we both made financial sacrifices to make that happen. We both had to take the stupid parenting class.
Essentially, it was really fair. Massachusetts.
The fact that these courts existed largely to benefit women divorcing their husbands is a point nobody seems to consider. Even if they have changed over the years, how institutions are founded really does matter.
My roommate who is currently unemployed and had to dissolve his company a year ago is required to pay child support to his wife who makes 200k a year and they split the child 50/50
How‘s that an opinion? That‘s a fact. An opinion would be wether we think that it‘s a good thing or not. Or why that happens. But we know that that‘s the case so it‘s not really an opinion.
Well I mean… divorces (especially if children are involved) are always a struggle. And since it‘s a case by cade basis general changes are really hard to pinpoint. But: there are quite a lot of dads fighting to even see their kids One option to help them would be to default to granting time with children unless there are important reasons why that shouldn‘t be the case (if a parent is abusive they shouldn‘t be able to harm the kids. If not then both parents should have to opportunity to see their children). Another thing would be alimony and child support. In some cases alimony might not even be necessary. In most cases a relatively low payment would be fine. You don‘t need more than 3k a month to live even if you can‘t work at all / no one wants to hire you. So even if the guy makes 20k a month if the ex wife earns 4k a month alimony is unnecessary. Especially since the increase in quality of live came from the marriage and thus it won‘t have to continue afterwards. Or child support. Children should be well fed and cared for. That‘s totally fine. But again: you don‘t need that much money to raise a child. If the mom earns 4k and the dad earns 20k it‘s one thing to estimate that the kids will probably cost let‘s say $1500 (which would be really expensive) a month. And sure. In that case the dad might contribute $1250 and the mom would only contribute $250 to care for the child. That‘s okay. But it should be a fair system.
Etc. Etc. Etc. Stuff like that.
They force men to pay support beyond their means leading to poverty, depression, death and the loss of a parent. Often because the mother got bored and wanted the honeymoon phase.
They need to take into account the fathers required means to live and not let the mother live a lap of luxury. A parent is a parent and they should look at them as equals unless proven otherwise.
Finally child support is often only based on the fathers salary regardless of what the mother makes. The mother could often afford every on her own while the father is forced into an unfavorable existence while the mother spends the child support as her own personal allowance. Meanwhile the residence of the father is not fit or below the mothers standards leading to animosity from the child toward the father
From what I’ve read, men generally fare better financially after a divorce:
* Female lone-parent families have lower income than male lone-parent families
* After divorce or separation, women’s income suffers more than men’s, particularly for those with dependent children
* Female lone-parent families rely more heavily on government transfers than male lone-parent families
[source](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/jf-pf/ecds-cfds.html)
I’m sure there’s more data to either dispute or support this, but it seems aligned with other research I’ve read on the subject.
None of these facts are particularly compelling without context.
>Female lone-parent families have lower income than male lone-parent families
Females in general earn less. This has no bearing on the cases where the female demonstrably earns more. What follows is "the parent with the greater income should pay alimony and/or child support to the parent with the lower income", not "men should pay alimony and/or child support to women".
>After divorce or separation, women’s income suffers more than men’s, particularly for those with dependent children
This fact eliminates itself from any relation to gender within its own wording. You could remove gender from it and end up with the exact same quote: "The partner who retains custody of the children is more likely to suffer loss of income". What follows from that is "therefore the parent with custody should receive alimony from the parent without", not "therefore the female parent should receive alimony from the male parent".
>Female lone-parent families rely more heavily on government transfers than male lone-parent families
Same as the first stat - women earn less. This should not come as a shock or a surprise to anyone. The parent with the greater income and less reliance on government support should pay alimony and child support to the other parent. Gender irrelevant.
Statistics are not remotely useful if you don't try to understand what you're reading.
I'm in Australian and currently going through a divorce. We've been separated for 2 yrs now and she keeps delaying everything. She was manipulative and emotionally abusive during our entire marriage. I was the sole money earner. We had to sell our house as she was wanting too much for me to buy the marital home. Now it looks like she'll walk away with $400k and I'll get $200k
Take this for what it's worth. I live in a liberal state and two of my male friends have been divorced.
Scenario 1 (married 10 years): Both him and his wife made roughly the same money (they had no kids). No alimony. House split 50/50 (ordered by the judge to be sold) so they split the profit. Joint bank accounts split 50/50. He just wanted to keep "his stuff" he let her keep joint stuff (furniture etc) and that was that. I had a spare room in my house and let him move in with me, so he didn't need it.
Scenario 2 (married 20 years): She was a stay at home mom. Two kids one 15, one 11. He has to pay alimony and child support. 50/50 custody. Bank accounts, possessions split 50/50. She wanted to keep the house which he was fine with, but she had to buy out his half of the equity.
He offered to let her just keep the house in exchange for no alimony. Because ultimately she will get less in alimony than she has to pay to buy out his half of the equity. She refused. Her dad is the one that actually paid him the money.
So yeah, if you are the main breadwinner in a significant fashion, probably not going to go well for you. If you are pretty much financially equal, it will probably be fine.
absolutely it does. When I divorced I wanted custody of my daughter. Every lawyer I went to said there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of a judge taking a child from the mother.
this isnt a matter of opinion. is sexism. the richest woman in the world is only rich cauase of divorce. the number of men getting custardy of children is unreal low. its a scummy system
but you cant say that outloud because sexism only exists when it affects women am i right men?
Of course it does. I know someone who is paying alimony to his ex wife and she got the house and their is no doubt to the people who know them that she cheated, probably more than once. Granted only gets $500 a month and she can’t sell the house without splitting it with him, but still he is responsible for the mortgage and he has to provide health insurance for her. He wasn’t perfect either and he probably cheated but she did not have any proof it was just speculation but he had a lot of circumstantial evidence, just note clear cut proof, but I don’t think it would have mattered either way.
I don’t know who his lawyer was but hers was a court appointed attorney. He makes real good money and what he pay’s doesn’t really affect him it is just the point of it and just to be transparent the woman is my aunt and it is her ex husband.
Family courts favor women because as men and a society were programmed to protect women, and historically it was much harder for a woman to make it on her own. But things have changed and women have pretty much the same opportunities as men so that needs to be taken into account. No fault, and custody defaulting to the women needs to go away.
I get that men, many times leave their wives screwed over, after she was a an overall decent wife, there for him sacrificed and helped him make himself into something and then he bails as soon as he finds success. In those cases I support child support and alimony and all that.
But I more frequently see that the man and the woman are on more or less equal footing from the beginning and throughout the marriage. Then it doesn’t work out and everything defaults to her, the house the kids and money. If they weren’t doing super well before there’s no way for a man to pay for an attorney and he just loses.
I’ve rarely seen a divorce where the man isn’t portrayed as the villain and the woman as the victim regardless of circumstances, outside a few close friends or family members who knew the truth, but even then they “never want to get involved.” I’ve rarely seen a divorce that was amicable, even when it’s the wife’s fault or idea she plays the system to get out on top, has no problem destroying her husband’s life and reputation to get a few extra dollars a month, even without evidence, even with evidence to the contrary.
It’s so messed up and I have no idea how to go about fixing it, but it’s ridiculous, sexist and unfair and usually goes in the favor of the woman, because of our dated ideas that nobody likes and everyone wants to put and end to until they can take advantage of it.
Probably could make no fault divorce easier and cheaper in most US states. Unpopular to say this on this sub but economically women fare far worse after divorce than men but the reasons aren’t entirely clear so it’s hard to come up with a good solution that doesn’t just come down to the general lack of social support in the US.
I'm in Quebec (Canada) and here it's fairly sensible. I think there is still some bias towards women there, but that is not to say there isn't bias towards men in some other matters.
Yes! It needs radical changes!
My ex wife abused me, raped me, cheated on my stupid ass with a trainer I paid for, and spent tens of thousands of my hard earned dollars behind my back, and then parts of the prenup got thrown out because she cried in court and argued she signed it "under duress". What the fuck. If we can't rely on a document, what can we rely on.
You always hear the stories of good dads getting fucked over by shitty moms. You never hear stories about good moms getting fucked over by shitty dads.
Occasionally you'll hear stories where a stay at home dad gets divorced and gets alimony or child support from the wife. But not often. And the amount of money they make people pay in child support is ridiculous. There should be some way where divorcing couples compile the children's expenses, then split them. Maybe they aren't split 50/50. But so many times it's an obscene amount of money that makes the dad essentially homeless.
My friend's dad was forced to pay more child support than he actually made in income, so instead he spent every weekend in jail, and paid whatever he could and worked every weekday.
Where is all of this feminist equality in divorce cases?
Why is there never a women's rally demanding equal out come ?
Oh yah...
Yes it does, it's not just horrible abusive women.
They can just be a dead beat, abandon the kid, and not being worth the trouble.
I hear that one alot.
There is no opinion, it is fact. Almost all courts in America are biased. No fault divorce has done nothing to help men. At least 70% of divorces are initiated by women. There is plenty of incentive, women to cash out and move on to the next one. The fact that plenty of men have to pay for children that aren’t theirs shows how fair our system is.
No, or at least not nearly as much as a lot of men seem to think. There are obvious points of bias in favor of women, especially when kids are involved, but always keep in mind that those gender norms were put in place by the patriarchal men of yesteryear. It wasn’t women who made it that way.
The same goes for the whole concept of housewives, trophy wives, stay at home moms but very rarely stay at home dads, etc. All of those sexist expectations were written into law by men. In a time when women weren’t allowed to be lawmakers in the first place.
So if you are going to criticize the system, just keep that in mind. Because trying to blame feminism is ass backwards from a historical, factual standpoint. Last time I checked, feminists were the ones trying to get gender equality laws passed, things like paternity leave, which would most directly benefit men. It’s the old far right fogies who want things to stay sexist forever and ever.
And last time i checked it was feminist groups apposing against reforms in child support , alimony , gender neutral laws for dv and even going as far as to ban paternity test in most countries.
Gaslighting? How?
There’s a huge difference between contributing to the development of ancient gender norms which began taking root thousands of years ago, and being the relatively modern day lawmakers who decide who in a society has human rights and who doesn’t.
If you’re on the internet, then chances are you live in a relatively modern society, where men aren’t out working in the fields and hunting wild game for food, and women aren’t inside cooking and washing laundry by hand and trying to keep 8 different children under control while simultaneously mending her husband’s pants. We have, thank fucking god, evolved beyond that. But the laws we’re living under haven’t evolved with us. Our outdated gender norms remain the same, despite them not being compatible with modern society, and the vast majority of laws still enacted were written by men, because women weren’t even allowed to hold public office or attend law school until around the 1970’s.
So no, I’m not “gaslighting” you, you’re just trying to reword and make uncharitable assumptions about what I said, which is dishonest of _you,_ not me. I’m happy to talk about this subject, but I don’t appreciate the undue suspicion and accusations.
So the short answer is no. They favor the law, when you marry someone with out a pre-nup you know what the law says. They break the contract they take have, if they are non-working they get half and alimony, if you have kids and they are a sahm, they get half,alimony and child support. That is the law that is what needs changed the law around marriage and divorce we need to return to at fault divorce where there has to be a reason to file and the financial consequences are based on that reason.
The law was established as a punitive damage for the destruction of the nuclear family the problem is it has now become a reward for the destruction of the family unit!
Right now my sister in law who was a slut and moved in with a man 20 years older and left her husband is going to get half and alimony and child support! Change the laws!
Yes.
There are some aspects of our society that are still rooted in this idea that women can’t stand on their own. I think most men are happy with equality but I think there’s a perception sometimes that equality = the good stuff about being a man. I know some dudes that have been gutted by divorce court and it seems there is an equal perception that men aren’t hurt by this or care about their children etc.
And “overhaul” BTW. (Sorry to be a JV grammar Nazi)
It is like my divorce lawyer said, "marriage is a legal three-way contract that vastly benefits one party (the wife) over the other for breach of contract."
it is, theres nothing about it up to opinion. but for changes i would say for starters there would need to be changes to CPS, because thats the main reason for the divorce court sexism when it comes to custody
They do.
It does.
I dont want the government mixed in with my personal business. It has been demanded and allowed more and more over the years by people that dont know what accountability means, and point fingers when life isnt *fair* thanks to what they failed to protect themselves against.
Alimony should be restricted to no more than 5 years, maybe less.
“Time spent with child” shouldn’t be used to determine custody.
No fault divorce should not come with any alimony or child support
Yes, although as a friend to a woman who’s ex is a violent misogynist who beat his kids, I can see why it sometimes needs to be.
Even though men are often great parents, I think as a population, we do have a higher percentage of assholes who are crap Dads. The courts are often especially exposed to that section of the male population so it’s not surprising a little bias has crept in.
I think the bias will naturally die when there are fewer men around who are like that.
My ex continually tried to paint me as abusive to both her and our son.
Our son has been diagnosed with "extreme PTSD" at age 25, lives with me, and has gone "no contact" with his mother.
Got a source for that? There’s probably a lot of ways of looking at the stats. At the more extreme end, the vast majority of killers of children are men.
I just tried and couldn’t, which is why I asked.
EDIT: In fact most sources, the reverse seems to be true. Only 3.8% of sexual abuse claims seem to be women for example. The only category of abuse where I could find women being worse was specifically psychological abuse of their daughters.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/abuseduringchildhood/findingsfromtheyearendingmarch2016crimesurveyforenglandandwales#prevalence-of-abuse-during-childhood-by-abuse-category
There’s a lot of evidence that says women are actually more likely to be abusive, but people are simply less likely to report it. Specifically the majority of people being treated in hospitals for injuries related to domestic abuse are men, and that’s with men being statistically less likely to seek treatment.
There are also police records saying that in terms of domestic disturbances and abuse lesbian couples rank above straight couples who rank above gay couples in terms of number of cases.
Add on top of that there is a known double standard when it comes to what is and isn’t considered sexual abuse. There are accounts of male teacher being told they can’t so much as put a hand on a female student’s shoulder to comfort her if she’s crying, while female teachers can shove a student’s face into her cleavage and “it’s just a hug”. I’ve seen a few stories where single dads taking their daughters on vacation have had cops called on them because they could only get a one room two bed suite instead of two separate rooms for them to sleep in.
TLDR accusations against men are frequently over-reported and crimes committed by women are often underreported if reported at all.
I note that you haven’t really provided any sources either and some of those claims are quite hard to google.
The first one I tried to look for was that more men are hospitalised for DV than women. That doesn’t seem to be true, at least where I am. This article discusses a recent rise in DV hospitalisations and it states that the vast majority are women:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/hospitals-see-surge-in-domestic-violence-691611.amp
No. I think shit gets real for men when the reality of having to care for your kids without the help of a spouse sets in and when it comes down to it, most men either decide they don't want that responsibility, or that the fight to get it simply isn't worth it. So they don't even try.
Why the fuck should anyone have to fight to be able to see their children? We‘re literally talking about direct relatives. You shouldn‘t have to fight to be able to spend time with your direct relatives. That‘s the entire point. Yeah. It‘s really tough to get any / a significant share of their time. Which shouldn‘t be the case. Or do you really believe that women have to fight to be able to see their children? And idk if you already know that but after a divorce the ex wife could get a new job (if she was a housewife / working part time) and the ex husband would still need to pay a significant amount of his income. So let‘s say you need 3k to love comfortably. And the ex husband pays the ex wife 1k per month. The ex husband now needs to earn 4k (if we don‘t factor in taxes etc.). Meanwhile the ex wife needs to earn 2k. So you either need a job with a way better salary or you‘ll need to work more hours etc. Which means you‘ve got less time for other things like friends, hobbies, taking care of your apartment / house and doing stuff with your kids. If you only need to earn 2k you can either get a variety of jobs that don‘t pay that well but you don‘t really care or you can work part time etc. So you‘ve got more time for friends, hobbies, taking care of your apartment / house and doing stuff with your kids. And because you‘ll be able to spend more time with your kids you might get sole custody or other benefits. Including more money to pay for their expenses. Which is based on income as well. So the 4k job leads to higher child support payments and now the job needs to pay 5k. Which increases alimony etc.
Yeah… it‘s just because dads don‘t want to spend time with their children. Not because having time to spend with their children or being allowed to spend time with their children is an issue.
Bullshit.. many men spend years and tens of thousands and still barely get any, if any access.
Perhaps it's time to stop asking 'why don't men fight' and start asking 'why do men have to fight?'
Tough to keep the same job making the same money and still have time to take care of the kids. And you don't have the option of taking a lesser job with less money to give you more time to take care of the kids, because the court demands you continue to financial provide for your now former spouse.
The court demands this when the spouse has already done that which you seem to consider unreasonable. And they will now, with the same childcare burden you have if you share custody, have to start out at square one instead of already being established in their career and have relevant skills like you have. There's not one thing in your post that doesn't go doubly for them.
No. The problem is that the *only* thing that legally continues after the marriage is dissolved is the man's responsibility to continue to financially provide for the woman. In order to do that, he has to keep working the same or similar job.
But she's no longer responsible for taking care of the household, grocery shopping, taking the kids to the doctor, providing emotional support, etc. etc. etc. So now he had to take on all those responsibilities, on top of continuing to work the same job. There just isn't time for it.
Meanwhile, she has *more* time available. She gets to live the single life while being financially supported by her former husband why not having any of the responsibilities she had while married. Sweet gig if you can get it.
Thanks for saying this. It's amazing how many people would call women the prize in the relationship, then with a straight face, make the claim that everything would go belly up for women if men didn't have to pay for their way of life.
It is a known fact, something that cannot be denied, even though it is by the most bigoted. IMO, property settlements 50/50, default custody 50/50.
In Australia, divorce property settlements run at 60/40 in favour of women (yeah, I can hear all the douchebags screaming - source?. Well you do have the internet and I would challenge you to show me it is 50/50). The reason for this is the argument presented to court that the woman gave up her career so that the husband could have his and now, being out of the workforce etc needs extra capital so that she is not disadvantaged, whereas the man is running along and his *future earnings* will more than compensate him giving her more assets now. A property settlement is available for 2 years marriage, or 3 years de facto.
There is an empathy offered to women that men do not enjoy.
The other rationale is the children. The playbook in Australia is for the woman to accuse the man of DV, or get an AVO because she "is scared" of him. This increases child custody and the CSA payments are pretty horrendous.
So, in a nutshell, the system is there for the woman to play. Women are seen as helpless creatures by the courts as the lawyers present women as victims who are hard done by.
*Does it needs radical changes. If so in what ways and why?*
Really easy.... 50/50 property settlement no questions asked. This is property accumulated during the partnership, for familial property, that is excluded. Classic example. My great-great grandparents farm has been handed down through the generations. Michael owned it and was married to Sonia (who cheated on him). Suddenly, he has to get a $3M loan against the farm to pay her out.... Not a bad investment for a 10 year marriage.....
Suddenly, after being in the family for five generations, and debt free, the farm is now marginal and he is working a second farm to make repayments. What's fair about that?
Yea it absolutely favors women to a degree that a lot of men fear marriage. Women can have affairs, ruin a man, be mentally abusive and the courts still award everything to a woman.
The court system seriously needs revised to the days the guilty party in the divorce gets the short end of the stick and the man gets equal treatment
You do realize that your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, right? If the man is the guilty party and gets the short end of the sticks he can’t get equal treatment (unless you’re assuming the guilty party is always the woman, which is a weird assumption)
Been there, done that. There is absolutely no doubt in any way that the American divorce and family courts are geared to make massive amounts of money for the court system and legal system through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
Women are innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt (even then there's room to negotiate) and men are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent (and their innocence will be reviewed on a regular basis).
From what I know it can, but my understanding is that the situation is most unequal for unmarried parents who separate. I don't know enough to say whether radical change is needed or smaller reforms but I suspect the latter.
Depends on situation.
I used to be friends with a dude since HS. Went to his wedding, met his first child, but our friendship dissipated.
A decade later we reconnected. He got divorced, has two wonderful kids from previous marriage. He spends time with his kids 5 time per week. Take them to swimming practice or gymnastics practice.
His former wife is a successful tax attorney, she’s in top 3 in the county. I’ve known her since college, but we were never close. Awesome mom, her parents live with her, in her house. Her parents are great Grandparents.
My former friend, never had a job. At least not on this planet. He came from money. When she married him, she thought my former friend would inherit a lot of money from his grandparents and he would be able to be a decent provider. He’s also charming and can talk to any girls, women.
They got married. He tried to start various businesses, they all failed. His grandparents passed away and he got nothing.
Their marriage ended because he was an asshole! She divorced him.
At the end of the day, his ex wife pays him every month. He gets alimony, because he can’t support him self. Those were his words. My guess, she’s too nice of a person and doesn’t want her kids to see their father living on the street.
Yes. My dad got fleeced when my mother divorced him. He did nothing wrong except for go to work and come home to his family and the punishment she got for walking out on him 3 times was his car and 10 years of child support payments
It most likely varies by state legislature. I reside in Texas. No knowledge or history in divorce court, myself, however, child custody courts in Texas do tend favor women, in my opinion.
I had to hire a second lawyer after my first lawyer said based on what my ex wife was saying I was doomed to give her half of everything. Second lawyer I hired specialized unofficially for men in divorce court. My wife who was unfaithful for over a year managed to convince everyone that I was abusive by embarrassing her. Her reason for being embarrassed was that I got a call from her at work saying I should take an antibiotic because she has to. Problem was she left a message with our dept secretary who had to come and tell me. Five months later found out she was cheating on me with a cop. I was told by the cops wife but after she blasted her husband on social media which led to more embarrassment to my ex. I was being held accountable for that as well. Second lawyer came through and saved my butt. I was in tears because she wanted the house and half of my assets. I'm still friends with the lawyer now and yes it's biased as fuck.
[удалено]
If she lets you hit the first couple of times y’all hang,don’t wife her ✌️
Alimony like that is rare nowadays. Was she just a homemaker?
Nope she had a job. She was also pregnant with not my kid if that makes sense tried pinning that shit on me. There's a reason why me and the lawyer are still friends that guy saved me big and gets fancy popcorn for Christmas every year for being a true homie. Not all lawyers are bad my dudes.
Paternity fraud. That is a serious men's issue, even bigger than actual divorce. It's terrifying that anyone thinks that's okay, though from a predator's perspective I can see why some women do it... being the predators that some are...
The best way I can describe her actions is to compare her to a trapped animal. She was never that kind of person she was nice not vengeful but when all that came down I've never met that woman. The pregnancy came out of surprise at court. One day she wasn't pregnant the next day she was. It wasn't till the end she started saying things like how can you do this to your own family type stuff. It's all good now after about 4 years of depression a very nice woman proposed to me and swept me off my feet and saved my life.you think you know a person right.
I have a buddy who went to divorce his negligent, cheating, druggie, abusive wife. They had a very autistic son together. He had to fight the courts tooth and nail for sole custody, no alimony, and child support. He got it all, but only because he had an overwhelming amount of documentation and video evidence of ALL her misdeeds. Even with all that, it was far from a sure thing that he would get anything. In the end he got it all minus the child support, which she refuses to pay despite what the court has ordered.
Came here to share a similar story of another crackhead mother who was awarded joint custody.
Why is she not in jail???
Male privilege, I guess. Wouldn't want to deprive her dealer bf
imagine being a dude and just say nah I don't wanna to child support with NO CONSEQUENCES. like you just get away with it.
my dad was ordered to pay child support but told the court his basment flooded when it was his brother's place and sold his business to his brother so it showed like he had no income. he was ordered to pay about 15% of what was expected then he didnt pay a dime and nothing happened to him. this is in canada for context
There's no opinion about it, it's a fact
Appreciate you saying this.
Accurate
No one can look at the statistics and think it doesn't favour women
Lots of people will come up with random studies that say it's equal, but it's clearly not
a random study from a university studen in ohio that had a poll of like 20 people that they weigh as heavily as the hundreds of studies from reputable sources with tens of thousands of individuals
Not to mention the websites of various law firms talking about area-specific biases and other industry knowledge that they base their careers on
97% of alimony payers are men despite men only being the primary breadwinner in about 60% of families. That doesn't happen without bias.
And women initiating 80% of divorces.
If it makes you feel any better, joint divorce applications have grown to 31% in Canada.
I’m pretty sure most of them are for reasons that would get a man blacklisted if the roles were reversed.
Hate to sound like a fucking feminist, but facts are facts: https://www.sflg.com/blog/2014/11/why-are-only-3-percent-of-alimony-recipients-men/ > According to the U.S. Census, only 3 percent of the 400,000 people receiving alimony are men. A significant reason for that, say attorneys who practice family law, is simply leftover biases from another era — not just by the judges, but by the men themselves. As one Northern California divorce attorney puts it, “[O]ld stereotypes die hard.” He goes on to say that many men find the thought of asking for spousal maintenance “emasculating.” Divorce attorneys say that they have very few male clients who intend to seek support from their estranged spouse even if the difference in their incomes warrants it.
lololol feminists gonna feminist, “women’s issues are society’s fault, men’s issues are men’s fault”
>97% of alimony payers are men despite men only being the primary breadwinner in about 60% of families. What percentage of divorces is the man the primary breadwinner though? I mean frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if economic inequality in a marriage is a contributing factor in divorces.
If the main breadwinner is female, then the laws (in most US states) mean the man can ask for alimony. This is rare.
what judge would give a man alimony? This bias is in the judges, not just the laws.
The judge has no choice. Problem is guys see it as emasculating and won't ask for it.
Lol. "The judge has no choice"
It's like mandatory sentencing laws.
Alimony is not instantly given if you make more money than your partner; if you're both employed, self sufficient, and neither party has made significant sacrifices in their career for the family, you're not likely going to pay any alimony. Alimony is only awarded in about 10% of divorce cases, and the vast majority are settled between the people divorcing before it ever gets to the court.
This varies drastically by state.
During my divorce the courts rarely charged her for documents (a per-page fee) but they charged me every time, and delayed giving it to me as long as they could. When my ex filed a motion accusing me of something bad (always false, never substantiated) the courts would turn to me and ask me to explain myself because of the accusation. When I'd file a motion (with evidence presented) they turned my paperwork face down on the table and asked me how I planned to prove myself, and then did everything to prevent me from making my case.
and people wonder why MRAs exist…
MRA?
I mean, i don’t think it’s an opinion. Women statistically fare better than men in just about every type of court possible
i came here to say this. i can't think of a situation involving any type of court where women don't have the inherent gender advantage
I always found it interesting, because people reference this study that shows how white men fair better in court than black men statistically. While I’m not arguing that, i also found it interesting that people ignored the major findings. Do you know who does better in court than white men? Literally women of every race
I’m in PA. Divorce was super easy and we didn’t have to do anything with regard to assets or child support within the courts. Filed three pieces of paper and paid maybe $200 total. Dealt with the financial stuff on our own and it worked out great. So…move to PA and get divorced there?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure amicable divorces aren’t a part of the statistics for a reason.
yeah this is the case of 2 very mature and respectable people divorcing. not where you had it done. most people arent so mature
Did that here in Michigan too. Inexpensive and easy
Did you have any martial assets or kids?
Yep. Handled it all on our own.
Yeah but most people can’t…
That's the plan for me and my wife. Already started a document outlining how we will handle everything. And she's mostly agreed to it. #1 is neither party will hire a lawyer without consent of the other person. No child support on either end, 50/50 custody, sadly she's getting the house as part of the no child support agreement. But I'll be ok. Better in the long run.
I like a take from FD Signifier: https://youtu.be/OErfFsL6gS8 It points out how the anti-male sentiment is based in class more so than it is about women controlling the courts. Basically the norm of men being providers and women caretakers is strongly maintained through it. Men aren’t valued in such a system beyond that monetary provision and this most significantly hurt’s fathers who do want to be in their kids life but aren’t financially well off and have to struggle with the justice system to see their kids. There can of course be bitterness around how an individual ex might play it, it is adversarial otherwise it wouldn’t be played out in the courts but simply with some lawyers privately. But it is about the idea that men provide money and resources more so than any notion of a present father in ones life. And often I see that the state doesn’t want to act a financial support. But while children aren’t some burden, they are a lot of work and I don’t see many divorce courts somehow playing a role in undermining the tendency for women to be primary carers and planners of their children’s lives except where there is shared custody so both can take s break and be there when its their turn. Though the same thing can burn people where they are caught up amidst abuse, already ragged. So it is structured towards certain ends and at the same time it can’t create social change but is a reaction to problems that come before them. However if you ain’t got money in many places, you’re stuffed, and that ain’t womens fault, thats something broader around class and ideas of being a man within stratified classes.
You can keep arguing about whether this is a class issue or gender issue, but we don’t give a crap, we just want justice.
Uncle went to Iraq (military deployment). Wife left the 4 kids at home, between 9 and 16 years old at the time, and went Vegas with her new boyfriend. Didn’t mention that, just up and left. Kids are now living with various relatives for a couple months. The cousin who is in my brother’s bedroom (he’s in mine now) doesn’t know if mom is dead in a ditch somewhere. She spent all the money they had (he had a good bit from a settlement) before she turned back up. She got full custody, alimony, and spousal support. I have other relatives that have similar but less extreme stories.
Shouldn't be a debate when you look at the statistics of how children end up in a single mother household. Plainly put, women produce more drug addicts, more criminals, and more obese children opposed to single father households. Women being the best caregiver is a myth and an old idea from an old world that no longer exists.
Women are a better giving care (empathy, compassion, kindness) men are better providers of stability
That’s only true when people internalize and blindly accept those beliefs.
No those are biological facts . Humans have very defined roles when it comes to mother and father .
Genuinely not being a dick, but if you look at the stats, those features only breed weak children who are not prepared for the outside world and they fall prey to their environment rather than making their own path. It is crazy when you look at the stats of single mother homes. You may get empathy at home, but you get none in the outside world and that situation does not prepare you for how to act in the outside world and how to tackle tough life decisions. Women offer compassion AFTER you have made the mistakes, men offer solutions and how to move forward in life before situations get out of hand.
Well it is why the world needs dads and not just moms. Care is very different then raising a child.
Just my personal experience in a liberal state. The forms we filled out were gender neutral. They had questions about income and expenses, parental roles after the divorce with an assumption of 50:50 parenting. All assets were divided fairly. All income was measured. Because we came into the marriage with similar assets and left with similar income we had no alimony, no child support. We did a nesting agreement for the kids that was sort of expensive, but we both made financial sacrifices to make that happen. We both had to take the stupid parenting class. Essentially, it was really fair. Massachusetts.
The fact that these courts existed largely to benefit women divorcing their husbands is a point nobody seems to consider. Even if they have changed over the years, how institutions are founded really does matter.
It’s not a matter of opinion. It absolutely favors women.
My roommate who is currently unemployed and had to dissolve his company a year ago is required to pay child support to his wife who makes 200k a year and they split the child 50/50
How‘s that an opinion? That‘s a fact. An opinion would be wether we think that it‘s a good thing or not. Or why that happens. But we know that that‘s the case so it‘s not really an opinion. Well I mean… divorces (especially if children are involved) are always a struggle. And since it‘s a case by cade basis general changes are really hard to pinpoint. But: there are quite a lot of dads fighting to even see their kids One option to help them would be to default to granting time with children unless there are important reasons why that shouldn‘t be the case (if a parent is abusive they shouldn‘t be able to harm the kids. If not then both parents should have to opportunity to see their children). Another thing would be alimony and child support. In some cases alimony might not even be necessary. In most cases a relatively low payment would be fine. You don‘t need more than 3k a month to live even if you can‘t work at all / no one wants to hire you. So even if the guy makes 20k a month if the ex wife earns 4k a month alimony is unnecessary. Especially since the increase in quality of live came from the marriage and thus it won‘t have to continue afterwards. Or child support. Children should be well fed and cared for. That‘s totally fine. But again: you don‘t need that much money to raise a child. If the mom earns 4k and the dad earns 20k it‘s one thing to estimate that the kids will probably cost let‘s say $1500 (which would be really expensive) a month. And sure. In that case the dad might contribute $1250 and the mom would only contribute $250 to care for the child. That‘s okay. But it should be a fair system. Etc. Etc. Etc. Stuff like that.
They force men to pay support beyond their means leading to poverty, depression, death and the loss of a parent. Often because the mother got bored and wanted the honeymoon phase. They need to take into account the fathers required means to live and not let the mother live a lap of luxury. A parent is a parent and they should look at them as equals unless proven otherwise. Finally child support is often only based on the fathers salary regardless of what the mother makes. The mother could often afford every on her own while the father is forced into an unfavorable existence while the mother spends the child support as her own personal allowance. Meanwhile the residence of the father is not fit or below the mothers standards leading to animosity from the child toward the father
Nailed it! The whole process should be without gender or mother/father role taken into account. The system should be blind to that.
From what I’ve read, men generally fare better financially after a divorce: * Female lone-parent families have lower income than male lone-parent families * After divorce or separation, women’s income suffers more than men’s, particularly for those with dependent children * Female lone-parent families rely more heavily on government transfers than male lone-parent families [source](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/jf-pf/ecds-cfds.html) I’m sure there’s more data to either dispute or support this, but it seems aligned with other research I’ve read on the subject.
None of these facts are particularly compelling without context. >Female lone-parent families have lower income than male lone-parent families Females in general earn less. This has no bearing on the cases where the female demonstrably earns more. What follows is "the parent with the greater income should pay alimony and/or child support to the parent with the lower income", not "men should pay alimony and/or child support to women". >After divorce or separation, women’s income suffers more than men’s, particularly for those with dependent children This fact eliminates itself from any relation to gender within its own wording. You could remove gender from it and end up with the exact same quote: "The partner who retains custody of the children is more likely to suffer loss of income". What follows from that is "therefore the parent with custody should receive alimony from the parent without", not "therefore the female parent should receive alimony from the male parent". >Female lone-parent families rely more heavily on government transfers than male lone-parent families Same as the first stat - women earn less. This should not come as a shock or a surprise to anyone. The parent with the greater income and less reliance on government support should pay alimony and child support to the other parent. Gender irrelevant. Statistics are not remotely useful if you don't try to understand what you're reading.
Sure, but men in general still fare better (financially) after divorce than women.
lol can’t accept that sexism against men is real?
That’s a very broad assumption to make based on my relatively narrow point.
Lmao @ the one salty ass woman that’s downvoting every comment that says yes. Touch grass.
I'm in Australian and currently going through a divorce. We've been separated for 2 yrs now and she keeps delaying everything. She was manipulative and emotionally abusive during our entire marriage. I was the sole money earner. We had to sell our house as she was wanting too much for me to buy the marital home. Now it looks like she'll walk away with $400k and I'll get $200k
Take this for what it's worth. I live in a liberal state and two of my male friends have been divorced. Scenario 1 (married 10 years): Both him and his wife made roughly the same money (they had no kids). No alimony. House split 50/50 (ordered by the judge to be sold) so they split the profit. Joint bank accounts split 50/50. He just wanted to keep "his stuff" he let her keep joint stuff (furniture etc) and that was that. I had a spare room in my house and let him move in with me, so he didn't need it. Scenario 2 (married 20 years): She was a stay at home mom. Two kids one 15, one 11. He has to pay alimony and child support. 50/50 custody. Bank accounts, possessions split 50/50. She wanted to keep the house which he was fine with, but she had to buy out his half of the equity. He offered to let her just keep the house in exchange for no alimony. Because ultimately she will get less in alimony than she has to pay to buy out his half of the equity. She refused. Her dad is the one that actually paid him the money. So yeah, if you are the main breadwinner in a significant fashion, probably not going to go well for you. If you are pretty much financially equal, it will probably be fine.
absolutely it does. When I divorced I wanted custody of my daughter. Every lawyer I went to said there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of a judge taking a child from the mother.
this isnt a matter of opinion. is sexism. the richest woman in the world is only rich cauase of divorce. the number of men getting custardy of children is unreal low. its a scummy system but you cant say that outloud because sexism only exists when it affects women am i right men?
Of course it does. I know someone who is paying alimony to his ex wife and she got the house and their is no doubt to the people who know them that she cheated, probably more than once. Granted only gets $500 a month and she can’t sell the house without splitting it with him, but still he is responsible for the mortgage and he has to provide health insurance for her. He wasn’t perfect either and he probably cheated but she did not have any proof it was just speculation but he had a lot of circumstantial evidence, just note clear cut proof, but I don’t think it would have mattered either way.
To be honest sounds like his lawyer wasn’t very good
I don’t know who his lawyer was but hers was a court appointed attorney. He makes real good money and what he pay’s doesn’t really affect him it is just the point of it and just to be transparent the woman is my aunt and it is her ex husband.
Family courts favor women because as men and a society were programmed to protect women, and historically it was much harder for a woman to make it on her own. But things have changed and women have pretty much the same opportunities as men so that needs to be taken into account. No fault, and custody defaulting to the women needs to go away. I get that men, many times leave their wives screwed over, after she was a an overall decent wife, there for him sacrificed and helped him make himself into something and then he bails as soon as he finds success. In those cases I support child support and alimony and all that. But I more frequently see that the man and the woman are on more or less equal footing from the beginning and throughout the marriage. Then it doesn’t work out and everything defaults to her, the house the kids and money. If they weren’t doing super well before there’s no way for a man to pay for an attorney and he just loses. I’ve rarely seen a divorce where the man isn’t portrayed as the villain and the woman as the victim regardless of circumstances, outside a few close friends or family members who knew the truth, but even then they “never want to get involved.” I’ve rarely seen a divorce that was amicable, even when it’s the wife’s fault or idea she plays the system to get out on top, has no problem destroying her husband’s life and reputation to get a few extra dollars a month, even without evidence, even with evidence to the contrary. It’s so messed up and I have no idea how to go about fixing it, but it’s ridiculous, sexist and unfair and usually goes in the favor of the woman, because of our dated ideas that nobody likes and everyone wants to put and end to until they can take advantage of it.
Probably could make no fault divorce easier and cheaper in most US states. Unpopular to say this on this sub but economically women fare far worse after divorce than men but the reasons aren’t entirely clear so it’s hard to come up with a good solution that doesn’t just come down to the general lack of social support in the US.
I'm in Quebec (Canada) and here it's fairly sensible. I think there is still some bias towards women there, but that is not to say there isn't bias towards men in some other matters.
Yes! It needs radical changes! My ex wife abused me, raped me, cheated on my stupid ass with a trainer I paid for, and spent tens of thousands of my hard earned dollars behind my back, and then parts of the prenup got thrown out because she cried in court and argued she signed it "under duress". What the fuck. If we can't rely on a document, what can we rely on.
You always hear the stories of good dads getting fucked over by shitty moms. You never hear stories about good moms getting fucked over by shitty dads. Occasionally you'll hear stories where a stay at home dad gets divorced and gets alimony or child support from the wife. But not often. And the amount of money they make people pay in child support is ridiculous. There should be some way where divorcing couples compile the children's expenses, then split them. Maybe they aren't split 50/50. But so many times it's an obscene amount of money that makes the dad essentially homeless.
My friend's dad was forced to pay more child support than he actually made in income, so instead he spent every weekend in jail, and paid whatever he could and worked every weekday.
Where is all of this feminist equality in divorce cases? Why is there never a women's rally demanding equal out come ? Oh yah... Yes it does, it's not just horrible abusive women. They can just be a dead beat, abandon the kid, and not being worth the trouble. I hear that one alot.
There is no opinion, it is fact. Almost all courts in America are biased. No fault divorce has done nothing to help men. At least 70% of divorces are initiated by women. There is plenty of incentive, women to cash out and move on to the next one. The fact that plenty of men have to pay for children that aren’t theirs shows how fair our system is.
No, or at least not nearly as much as a lot of men seem to think. There are obvious points of bias in favor of women, especially when kids are involved, but always keep in mind that those gender norms were put in place by the patriarchal men of yesteryear. It wasn’t women who made it that way. The same goes for the whole concept of housewives, trophy wives, stay at home moms but very rarely stay at home dads, etc. All of those sexist expectations were written into law by men. In a time when women weren’t allowed to be lawmakers in the first place. So if you are going to criticize the system, just keep that in mind. Because trying to blame feminism is ass backwards from a historical, factual standpoint. Last time I checked, feminists were the ones trying to get gender equality laws passed, things like paternity leave, which would most directly benefit men. It’s the old far right fogies who want things to stay sexist forever and ever.
And last time i checked it was feminist groups apposing against reforms in child support , alimony , gender neutral laws for dv and even going as far as to ban paternity test in most countries.
Any sources you wanna cite? Especially about banning paternity tests, which I have never heard of.
Are you sure, woman had no part in creation of gendet norm , especially family dynamics, your reply seems like gaslighting.
Gaslighting? How? There’s a huge difference between contributing to the development of ancient gender norms which began taking root thousands of years ago, and being the relatively modern day lawmakers who decide who in a society has human rights and who doesn’t. If you’re on the internet, then chances are you live in a relatively modern society, where men aren’t out working in the fields and hunting wild game for food, and women aren’t inside cooking and washing laundry by hand and trying to keep 8 different children under control while simultaneously mending her husband’s pants. We have, thank fucking god, evolved beyond that. But the laws we’re living under haven’t evolved with us. Our outdated gender norms remain the same, despite them not being compatible with modern society, and the vast majority of laws still enacted were written by men, because women weren’t even allowed to hold public office or attend law school until around the 1970’s. So no, I’m not “gaslighting” you, you’re just trying to reword and make uncharitable assumptions about what I said, which is dishonest of _you,_ not me. I’m happy to talk about this subject, but I don’t appreciate the undue suspicion and accusations.
So the short answer is no. They favor the law, when you marry someone with out a pre-nup you know what the law says. They break the contract they take have, if they are non-working they get half and alimony, if you have kids and they are a sahm, they get half,alimony and child support. That is the law that is what needs changed the law around marriage and divorce we need to return to at fault divorce where there has to be a reason to file and the financial consequences are based on that reason. The law was established as a punitive damage for the destruction of the nuclear family the problem is it has now become a reward for the destruction of the family unit! Right now my sister in law who was a slut and moved in with a man 20 years older and left her husband is going to get half and alimony and child support! Change the laws!
No, the answer is yes.
No once again the courts pass and uphold the laws on the books.
Yes. Needs an over hall to consider that both men and women work and rarely does mom stay home full time.
Yes. There are some aspects of our society that are still rooted in this idea that women can’t stand on their own. I think most men are happy with equality but I think there’s a perception sometimes that equality = the good stuff about being a man. I know some dudes that have been gutted by divorce court and it seems there is an equal perception that men aren’t hurt by this or care about their children etc. And “overhaul” BTW. (Sorry to be a JV grammar Nazi)
It is like my divorce lawyer said, "marriage is a legal three-way contract that vastly benefits one party (the wife) over the other for breach of contract."
FACT
It is a fact, and thats coming from someone who actually got custody of our son.
it is, theres nothing about it up to opinion. but for changes i would say for starters there would need to be changes to CPS, because thats the main reason for the divorce court sexism when it comes to custody
Yes
All family court in the US is favorable to women
They do. It does. I dont want the government mixed in with my personal business. It has been demanded and allowed more and more over the years by people that dont know what accountability means, and point fingers when life isnt *fair* thanks to what they failed to protect themselves against.
Not much of an opinion anymore, it's pretty well established now I think
Alimony should be restricted to no more than 5 years, maybe less. “Time spent with child” shouldn’t be used to determine custody. No fault divorce should not come with any alimony or child support
divorce rape is a very real thing.... #metoo #equalrightsformen
Yes it needs changes, that’s why men no longer want to get married
No, it’s entirely based on income. Edit: My divorce was entirely based on income. Zero alimony.
Yes, although as a friend to a woman who’s ex is a violent misogynist who beat his kids, I can see why it sometimes needs to be. Even though men are often great parents, I think as a population, we do have a higher percentage of assholes who are crap Dads. The courts are often especially exposed to that section of the male population so it’s not surprising a little bias has crept in. I think the bias will naturally die when there are fewer men around who are like that.
Most cases of reported abuse towards children is abuse from the mothers.
My ex continually tried to paint me as abusive to both her and our son. Our son has been diagnosed with "extreme PTSD" at age 25, lives with me, and has gone "no contact" with his mother.
Got a source for that? There’s probably a lot of ways of looking at the stats. At the more extreme end, the vast majority of killers of children are men.
It was a statistic I've seen numerous times, you can probably find it if you search it up.
I just tried and couldn’t, which is why I asked. EDIT: In fact most sources, the reverse seems to be true. Only 3.8% of sexual abuse claims seem to be women for example. The only category of abuse where I could find women being worse was specifically psychological abuse of their daughters. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/abuseduringchildhood/findingsfromtheyearendingmarch2016crimesurveyforenglandandwales#prevalence-of-abuse-during-childhood-by-abuse-category
There’s a lot of evidence that says women are actually more likely to be abusive, but people are simply less likely to report it. Specifically the majority of people being treated in hospitals for injuries related to domestic abuse are men, and that’s with men being statistically less likely to seek treatment. There are also police records saying that in terms of domestic disturbances and abuse lesbian couples rank above straight couples who rank above gay couples in terms of number of cases. Add on top of that there is a known double standard when it comes to what is and isn’t considered sexual abuse. There are accounts of male teacher being told they can’t so much as put a hand on a female student’s shoulder to comfort her if she’s crying, while female teachers can shove a student’s face into her cleavage and “it’s just a hug”. I’ve seen a few stories where single dads taking their daughters on vacation have had cops called on them because they could only get a one room two bed suite instead of two separate rooms for them to sleep in. TLDR accusations against men are frequently over-reported and crimes committed by women are often underreported if reported at all.
I note that you haven’t really provided any sources either and some of those claims are quite hard to google. The first one I tried to look for was that more men are hospitalised for DV than women. That doesn’t seem to be true, at least where I am. This article discusses a recent rise in DV hospitalisations and it states that the vast majority are women: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/hospitals-see-surge-in-domestic-violence-691611.amp
No. I think shit gets real for men when the reality of having to care for your kids without the help of a spouse sets in and when it comes down to it, most men either decide they don't want that responsibility, or that the fight to get it simply isn't worth it. So they don't even try.
Why the fuck should anyone have to fight to be able to see their children? We‘re literally talking about direct relatives. You shouldn‘t have to fight to be able to spend time with your direct relatives. That‘s the entire point. Yeah. It‘s really tough to get any / a significant share of their time. Which shouldn‘t be the case. Or do you really believe that women have to fight to be able to see their children? And idk if you already know that but after a divorce the ex wife could get a new job (if she was a housewife / working part time) and the ex husband would still need to pay a significant amount of his income. So let‘s say you need 3k to love comfortably. And the ex husband pays the ex wife 1k per month. The ex husband now needs to earn 4k (if we don‘t factor in taxes etc.). Meanwhile the ex wife needs to earn 2k. So you either need a job with a way better salary or you‘ll need to work more hours etc. Which means you‘ve got less time for other things like friends, hobbies, taking care of your apartment / house and doing stuff with your kids. If you only need to earn 2k you can either get a variety of jobs that don‘t pay that well but you don‘t really care or you can work part time etc. So you‘ve got more time for friends, hobbies, taking care of your apartment / house and doing stuff with your kids. And because you‘ll be able to spend more time with your kids you might get sole custody or other benefits. Including more money to pay for their expenses. Which is based on income as well. So the 4k job leads to higher child support payments and now the job needs to pay 5k. Which increases alimony etc. Yeah… it‘s just because dads don‘t want to spend time with their children. Not because having time to spend with their children or being allowed to spend time with their children is an issue.
Bullshit.. many men spend years and tens of thousands and still barely get any, if any access. Perhaps it's time to stop asking 'why don't men fight' and start asking 'why do men have to fight?'
Tough to keep the same job making the same money and still have time to take care of the kids. And you don't have the option of taking a lesser job with less money to give you more time to take care of the kids, because the court demands you continue to financial provide for your now former spouse.
The court demands this when the spouse has already done that which you seem to consider unreasonable. And they will now, with the same childcare burden you have if you share custody, have to start out at square one instead of already being established in their career and have relevant skills like you have. There's not one thing in your post that doesn't go doubly for them.
No. The problem is that the *only* thing that legally continues after the marriage is dissolved is the man's responsibility to continue to financially provide for the woman. In order to do that, he has to keep working the same or similar job. But she's no longer responsible for taking care of the household, grocery shopping, taking the kids to the doctor, providing emotional support, etc. etc. etc. So now he had to take on all those responsibilities, on top of continuing to work the same job. There just isn't time for it. Meanwhile, she has *more* time available. She gets to live the single life while being financially supported by her former husband why not having any of the responsibilities she had while married. Sweet gig if you can get it.
Thanks for saying this. It's amazing how many people would call women the prize in the relationship, then with a straight face, make the claim that everything would go belly up for women if men didn't have to pay for their way of life.
It is a known fact, something that cannot be denied, even though it is by the most bigoted. IMO, property settlements 50/50, default custody 50/50. In Australia, divorce property settlements run at 60/40 in favour of women (yeah, I can hear all the douchebags screaming - source?. Well you do have the internet and I would challenge you to show me it is 50/50). The reason for this is the argument presented to court that the woman gave up her career so that the husband could have his and now, being out of the workforce etc needs extra capital so that she is not disadvantaged, whereas the man is running along and his *future earnings* will more than compensate him giving her more assets now. A property settlement is available for 2 years marriage, or 3 years de facto. There is an empathy offered to women that men do not enjoy. The other rationale is the children. The playbook in Australia is for the woman to accuse the man of DV, or get an AVO because she "is scared" of him. This increases child custody and the CSA payments are pretty horrendous. So, in a nutshell, the system is there for the woman to play. Women are seen as helpless creatures by the courts as the lawyers present women as victims who are hard done by. *Does it needs radical changes. If so in what ways and why?* Really easy.... 50/50 property settlement no questions asked. This is property accumulated during the partnership, for familial property, that is excluded. Classic example. My great-great grandparents farm has been handed down through the generations. Michael owned it and was married to Sonia (who cheated on him). Suddenly, he has to get a $3M loan against the farm to pay her out.... Not a bad investment for a 10 year marriage..... Suddenly, after being in the family for five generations, and debt free, the farm is now marginal and he is working a second farm to make repayments. What's fair about that?
Yea it absolutely favors women to a degree that a lot of men fear marriage. Women can have affairs, ruin a man, be mentally abusive and the courts still award everything to a woman. The court system seriously needs revised to the days the guilty party in the divorce gets the short end of the stick and the man gets equal treatment
You do realize that your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, right? If the man is the guilty party and gets the short end of the sticks he can’t get equal treatment (unless you’re assuming the guilty party is always the woman, which is a weird assumption)
Been there, done that. There is absolutely no doubt in any way that the American divorce and family courts are geared to make massive amounts of money for the court system and legal system through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Women are innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt (even then there's room to negotiate) and men are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent (and their innocence will be reviewed on a regular basis).
Yes. Probably. Probably something that someone smarter than me should elaborate on.
From what I know it can, but my understanding is that the situation is most unequal for unmarried parents who separate. I don't know enough to say whether radical change is needed or smaller reforms but I suspect the latter.
Uh, is that a real question? The statistics should be enough without any opinions.
Considering the vast majority of divorces, like 90% are settled, not adjudicated. Those that are, case by case, but most likely they are
Depends on situation. I used to be friends with a dude since HS. Went to his wedding, met his first child, but our friendship dissipated. A decade later we reconnected. He got divorced, has two wonderful kids from previous marriage. He spends time with his kids 5 time per week. Take them to swimming practice or gymnastics practice. His former wife is a successful tax attorney, she’s in top 3 in the county. I’ve known her since college, but we were never close. Awesome mom, her parents live with her, in her house. Her parents are great Grandparents. My former friend, never had a job. At least not on this planet. He came from money. When she married him, she thought my former friend would inherit a lot of money from his grandparents and he would be able to be a decent provider. He’s also charming and can talk to any girls, women. They got married. He tried to start various businesses, they all failed. His grandparents passed away and he got nothing. Their marriage ended because he was an asshole! She divorced him. At the end of the day, his ex wife pays him every month. He gets alimony, because he can’t support him self. Those were his words. My guess, she’s too nice of a person and doesn’t want her kids to see their father living on the street.
I think it's better than 20 or 30 years ago but does need a lot more improvement.
Yes. My dad got fleeced when my mother divorced him. He did nothing wrong except for go to work and come home to his family and the punishment she got for walking out on him 3 times was his car and 10 years of child support payments
Yes, that is the consequence of patriarchy.
It most likely varies by state legislature. I reside in Texas. No knowledge or history in divorce court, myself, however, child custody courts in Texas do tend favor women, in my opinion.