LadySkinsFan Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 It's only been since around the 60s onward that women have been getting a fair share in a divorce. Most women and children, in the past, were left destitute when husbands/fathers took off and refused to support their children. And in the olden days, women gave up careers for caring for house and children and so did not have access to enough to support themselves and their children. I know when my mother divorced in 1974, she was given $300/month in alimony after almost 30 years of marriage and she didn't work. She went to work for minimum wage (about $3.00/hour if I remember right) and my dad was making about $40k. Then he retired and moved to Florida to get out of paying alimony. He was a civil servant and the law couldn't touch him. Thanks to Rep. Pat Schroeder of CO, the Congress passed legislation to garnish civil/military pay and pensions for child support and alimony. Then my mom went to federal court to get the alimony. So there is a good reason for the laws. They need to be applied fairly. Unfortunately, divorce has become a very adversarial process that only raises the level of hate, with everyone out to get the most out of the situation. I think that prenups should be worked out for every marriage. If the marriage lasts, then it isn't used. If the marriage doesn't last, then there is a blueprint for dividing assets and providing for children. ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 01:54 PM ---------- And generally speaking, a guy who will willingly dish out out nearly $16,000 a year to support someone else's kid, to a woman who cheated on him, doesn't fit the wife-beater profile. Yes, let's speculate!! Then there is some reason why he was paying all that money. And from the article, we don't know why. I think my views on marriage are now well known here. I think relationships should be worked out by express contract between the parties, rather than implied contract as is now accomplished through the marriage laws that lumps everyone into a framework that doesn't always fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Damnit, we're not the Evil Empire! We're the good guys! I have to draw the line somewhere! touche! i did like zoony's take on it though Again, we only know his side of the story. Until we have all the facts, the vitriol should be dialed down a notch.Here's some speculation: what if he was abusive, what if he was running around too. See, we don't know what happened in that marriage/divorce. oh boy, strawman much? We should know all the facts, so let's speculate? duh! Or, we can take it at face value, like the article suggests.If he was abusive, she probably should have divorced him before she cheated and popped another bun out of the oven. stop making sense! Anyone who has been immersed the the family court system knows quite well how it "works". The "vitriol" at least from my perspective is very well appropriate and needed to be directed towards the family court system. There are 1000's of stories just like this one. This case is typical and not unique. this never happens what are you talking about? she is clearly defending a battered woman who isn't trying to cheat a guy out of his hard earned money, no woman would ever do that... And generally speaking, a guy who will willingly dish out out nearly $16,000 a year to support someone else's kid, to a woman who cheated on him, doesn't fit the wife-beater profile. puhlease, that's exactly what he would like you to think, this deserves to be put in the conspiracy theories thread good sir! ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 01:58 PM ---------- It's only been since around the 60s onward that women have been getting a fair share in a divorce. Most women and children, in the past, were left destitute when husbands/fathers took off and refused to support their children. And in the olden days, women gave up careers for caring for house and children and so did not have access to enough to support themselves and their children.I know when my mother divorced in 1974, she was given $300/month in alimony after almost 30 years of marriage and she didn't work. She went to work for minimum wage (about $300/hour if I remember right) and my dad was making about $40k. Then he retired and moved to Florida to get out of paying alimony. He was a civil servant and the law couldn't touch him. Thanks to Rep. Pat Schroeder of CO, the Congress passed legislation to garnish civil/military pay and pensions for child support and alimony. Then my mom went to federal court to get the alimony. So there is a good reason for the laws. They need to be applied fairly. Unfortunately, divorce has become a very adversarial process that only raises the level of hate, with everyone out to get the most out of the situation. I think that prenups should be worked out for every marriage. If the marriage lasts, then it isn't used. If the marriage doesn't last, then there is a blueprint for dividing assets and providing for children. so because of something that happened decades ago, stand up guys like this one should suffer? wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 so because of something that happened decades ago, stand up guys like this one should suffer? wow... And I didn't even realize this was a race thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 so because of something that happened decades ago, stand up guys like this one should suffer? wow... Yes. Because what was once wrong should switch to the other side for awhile in order to get pay back to the people who weren't responsible for it... or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I assume if there is this much problem with family court system, then there is probably a good amount of problem with the criminal court system too (i.e. bad decisions, overlooked evidence, overly harsh punishments)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 And I didn't even realize this was a race thread. lol, you need to stop reading my mind! Yes. Because what was once wrong should switch to the other side for awhile in order to get pay back to the people who weren't responsible for it... or something like that... duh, haven't you studied up on your current events? I assume if their is this much problem with family court system, then there is probably a good amount of problem with the criminal court system too (i.e. bad decisions, overlooked evidence, overly harsh punishments)? quite possibly, i mean there have been plenty of cases that are now being looked at again and finding that the evidence was incorrect, didn't this just happen in TX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconTheVillain Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I'd gladly donate $20 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I'd gladly donate $20 right now. yeah but the guy above is probably right, the bail would probably go to the cheating ex. what about donations for better lawyers....or paying off the judge lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 what about donations for better lawyers....or paying off the judge lol How about a covert op? Let's just go get him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconTheVillain Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 How about a covert op? Let's just go get him! North Central Regional is on lock 24/7:mad: I, uh, have spent the night there before..... But yea, some laws need changing...this is definitely one of them. The guy doesn't even sound like he is a bad person at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 How about a covert op? Let's just go get him! i know there's a seal team out there that's pretty good ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 02:32 PM ---------- North Central Regional is on lock 24/7:mad: I, uh, have spent the night there before.....But yea, some laws need changing...this is definitely one of them. The guy doesn't even sound like he is a bad person at all. didn't ladyskinsfan tell you? 60 years ago women were oppressed! this guy deserves to pay alimony and get the chair, anything else would be an injustice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 So there is a good reason for the laws. They need to be applied fairly. Unfortunately, divorce has become a very adversarial process that only raises the level of hate, with everyone out to get the most out of the situation. I think that prenups should be worked out for every marriage. If the marriage lasts, then it isn't used. If the marriage doesn't last, then there is a blueprint for dividing assets and providing for children. Yes, let's speculate!! Then there is some reason why he was paying all that money. And from the article, we don't know why. well those things might have been true in the past (and thats unfortunate about your mother), they arent true today. courts are most definitely biased to woman in cases such as these. as you said, marriage and lifestyle has evolved, but the court's reaction to it has not i agree that the anger is pretty high here on the ex-wife. and we dont know the entire situation. maybe he cheated on her, maybe he beat her. we dont really know. but a good assumption is that he did not do those things. listen to the guys video, its pretty obvious he is throwing himself out there and opening himself up to investigation. from that, you can pretty much bet that he's not scared of being found out for being a bad husband, because he wasnt a bad husband. not to mention all of the comments saying how good of a husband he is. i for sure would be fighting to not give her a dime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Again, we only know his side of the story. Until we have all the facts, the vitriol should be dialed down a notch.Here's some speculation: what if he was abusive, what if he was running around too. See, we don't know what happened in that marriage/divorce. It doesn't matter if he was abusive. If there is no record of criminal complaint and no criminal record, the guy is to be assumed innocent. The woman, on the other hand has been proven guilty of adultery.ADULTERYWest Virginia Code, § 48-5-204 A divorce may be ordered for adultery. Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married man or woman with a person other than the offender's wife or husband. The burden is on the party seeking the divorce to prove the alleged adultery by clear and convincing evidence. Pretty sure a DNA test stating there is a 0% chance the man is the biological father stands as clear and convincing evidence. Yet, this man is required to pay both child support (for a kid that isn't his; granted the man agrees to pay this) and alimony to a woman who committed an act that is grounds for a divorce in the state. As a once divorced man, who was cheated on and was the grounds for divorce, men are literally held hostage by family court. You are assumed to be the cause of any and all legal action unless you have concrete proof otherwise. The judge literally assumed I was the adulterer in the case even though I filed the papers and submitted the evidence. Luckily, US Army had my back since my wife committed adultery with another soldier who admitted the act. If not for that, I would have been on the hook for alimony until she decided to get married again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 This is why I'm never getting married. Men are completely at the mercy of family courts and the risk of financial ruin is to great to make matrimony a worthwhile decision. Plus men are in they're prime's till they're 40's so why should I be tied down to one woman who can take all my money when I can have as many as I want for free for at least 20 more years. Plus coupled with the raising divorce rates and the fact that most relationships now a days have a shelf-life barely longer than the expiration date on a gallon of milk. i remember a girl i was considering marrying. i was really into her. when i see situations such as these, i am so glad i did not marry her. it wouldve been disastrously similar. im waiting for the right woman (not girl) and im gonna take my time doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 so because of something that happened decades ago, stand up guys like this one should suffer? wow... You don't comprehend what I'm posting. I'm saying we only know 1 side of the story, his. We don't know what happened in the marriage or divorce, thus we have no information on which to comment. I'm giving you history lessons about why certain laws were enacted. I agree that each case should be decided individually, based on all the facts presented. I've not written one word that says he should pay, he's a bad guy. You all jumped in with speculation so I did a little of my own. So sue me. I write pretty clearly to mean what I say. Don't impune meaning other than what I wrote. To recap for those who are comprehensively challenged: 1. We don't know the facts, only his side from the article. 2. I think that each divorce action should take into account all information pertaining to a case. That includes income, expenses and children, of both parties. 3. Adultery used to be a cause of action for divorce. I don't know which states still allow this. If someone is bringing a divorce action, they can certainly avail themselves of all the law allows. That goes for both sides. 4. I would hazard that all states have provisions that any child born during a marriage are deemed to be of the parents. With new technology that can determine parentage, this provision should be revisited as I believe that the true parents should be responsible for child support. Of course in the case of artifical insemination, there has to be an agreement that the other parent is liable for support. You see why I think implied marriage laws are problem in modern society and that each relationship should be created by express contract. 5. All I've written above is gender neutral. It provides for both heterosexual and same sex marriage provisions. I am not defending this woman per se, because I don't know her side. But someone had to stop the woman bashing on here. ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 02:49 PM ---------- Just to state that I don't know if this man is an abuser. It was a speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 where are all the folks saying he deserves to be in jail because he broke the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 You all jumped in with speculation so I did a little of my own. So sue me. Please show us what we speculated about. To recap for those who are comprehensively challenged:1. We don't know the facts, only his side from the article. The article also states that her attorney was asked to comment, and she refused. That inherently makes it a balanced article. The other side was given full opportunity to rebut, but declined. There's nothing else the writer is responsible for doing in that case. And the "other" side cannot make the allegation that the story is biased because only one side was reported. 2. I think that each divorce action should take into account all information pertaining to a case. That includes income, expenses and children, of both parties. Agreed. 3. Adultery used to be a cause of action for divorce. I don't know which states still allow this. If someone is bringing a divorce action, they can certainly avail themselves of all the law allows. That goes for both sides. Agreed. 4. I would hazard that all states have provisions that any child born during a marriage are deemed to be of the parents. With new technology that can determine parentage, this provision should be revisited as I believe that the true parents should be responsible for child support. Of course in the case of artifical insemination, there has to be an agreement that the other parent is liable for support. You see why I think implied marriage laws are problem in modern society and that each relationship should be created by express contract. Once more, agreed. 5. All I've written above is gender neutral. It provides for both heterosexual and same sex marriage provisions. No issues there either, though I'm a "civil unions for all" type. I am not defending this woman per se, because I don't know her side. But someone had to stop the woman bashing on here. No one is bashing "women." We're bashing THIS woman, and the laws regarding divorce/custody/support. What'd you say about comprehension challenged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 You don't comprehend what I'm posting. I'm saying we only know 1 side of the story, his. We don't know what happened in the marriage or divorce, thus we have no information on which to comment.I'm giving you history lessons about why certain laws were enacted. I agree that each case should be decided individually, based on all the facts presented. I've not written one word that says he should pay, he's a bad guy. You all jumped in with speculation so I did a little of my own. So sue me. I write pretty clearly to mean what I say. Don't impune meaning other than what I wrote. To recap for those who are comprehensively challenged: 1. We don't know the facts, only his side from the article. 2. I think that each divorce action should take into account all information pertaining to a case. That includes income, expenses and children, of both parties. 3. Adultery used to be a cause of action for divorce. I don't know which states still allow this. If someone is bringing a divorce action, they can certainly avail themselves of all the law allows. That goes for both sides. 4. I would hazard that all states have provisions that any child born during a marriage are deemed to be of the parents. With new technology that can determine parentage, this provision should be revisited as I believe that the true parents should be responsible for child support. Of course in the case of artifical insemination, there has to be an agreement that the other parent is liable for support. You see why I think implied marriage laws are problem in modern society and that each relationship should be created by express contract. 5. All I've written above is gender neutral. It provides for both heterosexual and same sex marriage provisions. I am not defending this woman per se, because I don't know her side. But someone had to stop the woman bashing on here. ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 02:49 PM ---------- Just to state that I don't know if this man is an abuser. It was a speculation. i comprehend exactly what you are saying, and it's summed up in the highlighted above. you have a bias, it's pretty clear, and i'm not sure if you are posting because you believe what you are typing or you are just sniffing around for a reaction. you are using emotion and speculation to support your bias, we are using evidence, pretty cut and dry. EDIT: lol, or what H_H said (I have been one step behind you all day ). I agree with all the same points and disagree with all the same ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 where are all the folks saying he deserves to be in jail because he broke the law?What law did he break? And where is he sitting right now? And do you really want to compare alimony and child support to a 4 time convicted drug dealer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 EDIT: lol, or what H_H said (I have been one step behind you all day ). I agree with all the same points and disagree with all the same ones. Are you patronizing me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 All marriages in the US are civil constructs. You don't have a legal marriage or divorce without submitting to the law. The only thing "religious" about marriage is the type of ceremony chosen, and the religious celebrant must be licensed by the state. I reread the article. The ex-wife's lawyer wouldn't comment because it's confidential. We don't know if the reporter went to a courthouse and researched the divorce, so we don't have independent facts from the court case because the reporter didn't state any independent facts. We have quotes by the man and his present wife and the reporter saw the paternity test results. This guy has been through the legal process in his state. He is now trying to get the laws changed through his legislators. BTW, I feel for him that he learned of the non-paternity and hence the adultery until what 2 years after the divorce. I feel for him having to pay alimony to an ex-wife who wasn't honest with him. And that's a lot of alimony. Unfortunately for him, he's on the hook to pay the alimony until the law changes. And I think that obviously the ex-wife didn't tell the court that she committed adultery during the divorce proceedings. Maybe that can be revisited because that sounds like fraud to me. But from the article, he has exhausted all his legal appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconTheVillain Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 where are all the folks saying he deserves to be in jail because he broke the law? I'm glad to see more folks standing up for what is right and just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 What law did he break? And where is he sitting right now? And do you really want to compare alimony and child support to a 4 time convicted drug dealer? I think all non-violent offenders should be on home monitors and not in jail. Why should we pay for internment of non-violent offenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 We don't know if the reporter went to a courthouse and researched the divorce, so we don't have independent facts from the court case because the reporter didn't state any independent facts. Straws. Grasp them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Straws.Grasp them. bahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.