Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    I think the thing I hate most about "family law" is the total lack
    of motivation for the *female* to really *try* to work out the 
    problems in the marriage.  Well over half of the divorces in the
    U.S. are filed by women (I don't have the exact reference, but I
    know I remember this from somewhere).  No, I am not trying to 
    discount the situations here the *male* really is a jerk, abuse,
    drug/alcohol use, etc.  I have seen many a good man locked out
    of his house for no better reason than she could do it (another
    man, feninist brainwashing, too many soap opera's, mentaly unstable,
    etc, etc, etc) and  she "knew" that the chances were 99% that the only 
    thing that she would lose in the divorce was *him* and possibly 
    some income.  
    
    You looked into what was going to happen to you in a divorce and
    decided that trying to work out the marriage wasn't such a bad 
    idea.  What if your conclusion had been that you would have gotten
    the house, car, kids, a fair sized chunk of her income, and have 
    many eligible females crawling out of the woodwork interested in
    your body?  This is what many females look at when trying to decide 
    on divorce (replace female with male in last sentense of course).
    Unfortunately the female usually also finds out too late that 
    divorce isn't all it's cracked up to be.  
    
    When a man comes to me and is trying to decide on divorce, I try my
    best to talk him into counseling *first*.  Make divorce the *last*
    resourt.  After all of what I have been saying, though, couseling 
    isn't a guarantee of success. I did try *everything* in my power to 
    save the marriage, but failed.  It takes two make a marriage and 
    only one to make a divorce.  However, I still believe that I was 
    correct in trying to save the marriage.  At least I know that I
    *did* try *everything* in my power.  That is one of the reasons
    I can be so certain about what I say and do now.  History, and 
    what has happened to my children, to me, and even to her have proven 
    that I was correct.  I was not dealing with a sane and rational person,
    and in her mind she had nothing to loose and everyting to gain, but 
    I still believe that *two* sane and rational individuals *can* work out 
    their differences and don't just have to "tough it out for the sake 
    of the children".  You may have to swallow a little of your pride, but 
    that is *nothing* compared to what is going to get shoved down your 
    throat in a divorce.
    
    fred();

    Re: .1
    
    Fred -- AMEN!
    
    You said it *very* well.
    
    Steve

    .1 Ditto Fred! well said!

    
    	This topic has recently (try last night) and over the past
    few months become more and more a reality to me and my wife.  My
    ex has a decent job but took us back to court last year for more 
    child support.  
    
    	She clearly does not spend the bulk of the child support money
    on my sons and has even told them that the money is not theirs.  Now
    I know I could do a MUCH BETTER job of raising my sons then my ex does
    especially with the money that I pay in child support.  
    
    	I think what is most irritating and what has really started to
    effect my current family situation is that she takes home 40% of my
    paycheck.  The courts (at least in Colo.) totally overlooked the fact
    that I have another family to support.  I make between $5k & $8k more
    then my wife but she brings home more then $100 more a week then I do.
    My wifes health has been severely effected by the stress that has been
    brought on by my ex, both financially and through emotional blackmail
    concerning my sons.  Both of my sons have said that they would rather
    live with us and they love my wife (I think, even more then they love
    their mother).  But, I am at a loss as far as legal options.  
    
    	It seems like the court systems are the ones that are setting up
    for second marriages to fail.  It's tough to have to deal with such
    stress.  It also places the children in a position of being resented
    because of the greed of the CP.
    
    	Can I cry now?
    	     _ed-

re: .4,

It just seems to me too that, the system takes everything into consideration
when they look at the CP's situation and screw you for more child support. By
this I mean, they include his/her debits (loans, credit cards, house hold bills,
failed business debits, mortgage), ignore just about everything else for the CP.
The NCP on the other hand, they ignore all debits, that you pay rent/mortgage,
have a second family and only look at your pay check and decide you can pay more
to the CP. I have a hard time with this injustice and there is sure is no such
thing as equal rights under such bias.

I remember going to court a few months back, all my debits were ignored, they
asked for my new SO's income statement (fortunately she wasn't working or been
working for a few months) and were only interested in what I made. On the other
hand the ex's income was taken and subtracted all her debits and IGNORED her
SO's income, an no questions asked to suppport expenses (I on the other hand had
to defend mine only to have them ignored anyway). Then the court just decides I
could afford paying XXX dollars. Case closed. Talk about one sided and unfair
treatment.

    
    I'm curious if any of you have considered trading your permanent
    employee status for a 1099 or other self employed scenario.  While this
    probably won't help your current support plan it could make it a lot
    harder to bump as circumstances change.

    Along those lines I can think of a number of financial vehicles
    (trusts, foriegn holdings, etc.) that might help even the playing
    field.  Has anyone tried this or is it to late after the initial
    action.
    
    -Bob

    Bob, unless you plan to get the majority of your $$ from companies
    other than Digital, I would not recommend trading permanent status for
    self-employment.   This is because Digital as a general rule refuses 
    to deal with individual consultants and instead requires everyone to go
    through a small number of approved agencies.  You sign up through the
    agency, work at Digital, and get paid by the agency... on a W2.  Even
    though hours may be variable, they generally look at the average over
    the last couple of years and set the %/$$ for support by that.  (And,
    it's just TOO BAD if you don't make at least that...!)  Since you get
    paid on a W2 your wages can be attached just like any permanent
    employee.  (I use the word "permanent" here to mean that one is
    directly on the company's payroll.)
    
    If you are truly "self-employed" without a large % of your income from
    any one source/client, then your "wages" cannot be attached.
    
    Steve

Talking about bias,

[story went something like this]

A group of women at a stag party someplace in Canada recently, got a little
carried away in a bar. Several male patrons, not part of this group, where
striped down to their under wear if not totally naked for all the women to see.
The police arrived and no one wanted to file any charges, nor did the police lay
any charges. Some father of one of a 20 year old wanted charges laid, but the
police did nothing other than get the situation under control and departed.

There was only speculation as to why the males did not want to file charges. It
was speculated that it was because they were males and men can handle them
selves and are not vulnerable as women, or they could see the humor in all
this and played along.

One of the equal rights groups were of course rather upset by the events saying
that charges should have been laid and there was clear case for sexual assault.
If the gender of the two parties were reversed, the males would all either be in
jail or had charges of sexual assault laid against them.

[end of verbiage]

There is some truth to what the equal rights group has stated, but I also
suspect that under circumstances, common sense prevailed and everyone went home
happy. I do some what agree if the genders were reversed, the out come would
have been different.

    re .9
    
    I agree.
    fred();

Further to the story in .9, the law sure does move in strange ways. Now they are
talking about charging the bar owner for not stepping in and putting a stop to
the incident.