just wondering...i found it sorta surprising b/c my dad told me his friend got in a divorce a while back and he had to give up 75% of his funds as well as the house/kids. also my question is under the assumption that there is no adultery going on or whatnot.
Is it true that the mom gets priority over the children/property in a divorce?
- Thread starter jinduy
- Start date
Unfortunately, yes. Things have gotten a little more fair lately, but it's still a long way to equality. Decent men get a bad rap because there are loser males who don't want to take care of their kids -- there's a negative stereotype that ALL men are like that, and it's just not true.
ah that really sucks and is really surprising... it'd be better if the court could decide w/o bias of gender.
Unfortunatel, gender and color bais will exist in our lives, in our kids lives, in their kids lives and probably in theirs kids lives as well.
Anubis
No Lifer
most times yes. and it really sucks cause she coudl be the "bad" parent and teh kids rightfully shoudl go with teh dad but they dont
I used to feel that way too. Then one of my co-workers asked me this:
Look at all the families you know, and think of what percentage of the child-care the father does. Not just watching the kids a bit, but all of it, clothes, friends, homework, food, school cr*ap, doctors, planning, allowances, social life, haircuts, barfing, shopping with them, etc etc.
I help out a lot - but no way am I in for more than half, and my wife works too. I can only think of one or two families where dad does the larger share of the child care. That's out of maybe hundreds of families I know.
Even if mom isn't the better parent, she's PROBABLY the one doing the most parent work.
It's a messed-up system anyway. In real life, the party with the better lawyer gets custody.
Look at all the families you know, and think of what percentage of the child-care the father does. Not just watching the kids a bit, but all of it, clothes, friends, homework, food, school cr*ap, doctors, planning, allowances, social life, haircuts, barfing, shopping with them, etc etc.
I help out a lot - but no way am I in for more than half, and my wife works too. I can only think of one or two families where dad does the larger share of the child care. That's out of maybe hundreds of families I know.
Even if mom isn't the better parent, she's PROBABLY the one doing the most parent work.
It's a messed-up system anyway. In real life, the party with the better lawyer gets custody.
the reverse is also true that it is assumed that all mothers are good mothers. both are assumptions and as such are prone towards being untrue for some people.
i think so far most people agree with you.
that there is a gender bias towards women when awarding the custody of children. and in her case she probably just sought custody so that she could get child support.
In my state it's actually law for a judge to be "Gender Nuetral" on a matter such as this. But living in the bible belt only helps to reinforce the "Mom is more fit automatically" perception in the family court system.
I had to fight like a dog to protect my rights with my son. There were numerous points over the years where I wondered if it would be better for me to bow out for my son's sake (This cannot be understood until you're there). Fortunately I stuck with it. I do not have physical custody, but I am in my son's life over %50 of the time, even though it's ordered by the court to be less.
One of the LARGEST hurdles I have had to overcome is stereo-typing me as a divorced single dad. When my son started K5 at a cristian school it seemed as if they wanted to crucify and torch me (real cristian of them huh?). But as the school year progressed they saw how serious I was about being involved in my sons education. I did everything I could, from volunteering in the class, to donating computers for their afterschool computer class. My ex only showed her true colors, so for now I'm not being sterotyped. He'll be in a new school next year, so I'm just preparing to do this "judgement" thing all over again.
I had to fight like a dog to protect my rights with my son. There were numerous points over the years where I wondered if it would be better for me to bow out for my son's sake (This cannot be understood until you're there). Fortunately I stuck with it. I do not have physical custody, but I am in my son's life over %50 of the time, even though it's ordered by the court to be less.
One of the LARGEST hurdles I have had to overcome is stereo-typing me as a divorced single dad. When my son started K5 at a cristian school it seemed as if they wanted to crucify and torch me (real cristian of them huh?). But as the school year progressed they saw how serious I was about being involved in my sons education. I did everything I could, from volunteering in the class, to donating computers for their afterschool computer class. My ex only showed her true colors, so for now I'm not being sterotyped. He'll be in a new school next year, so I'm just preparing to do this "judgement" thing all over again.
Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
You'll have to "ph34r" our judgement if you keep typing like that.
Just speaking the truth man. Just speaking the truth.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
In California if someone dies intestate (without a will) subject property is split %50 surviving spouse and %50 surviving children. This is for non joint tennancy property... most homes are held JT while treated as Community property for tax purposes and bank accounts have the JT option as well as any other property... if not defined it becomes community property. Ins policy and other assets have named benific. so no issue there it goes where defined.
unless the law has changed or you live in another state.
Regarding divorce It falls to the negotiations or no fault assumptions in california
I misread the title and referred to the death issue.. sorry.
unless the law has changed or you live in another state.
Regarding divorce It falls to the negotiations or no fault assumptions in california
I misread the title and referred to the death issue.. sorry.
My friend, should you not be Buddhist?Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
You'll have to "ph34r" our judgement if you keep typing like that.
Well, here in Ky., arbitration is set first where the parties sit with their lawyers and a 3rd-party arbiter in the hopes of hashing out asset/custody issues before going to trial. This saves each side (and children, if any are involved) from a long, drawn-out battle. It works rather well, esp. for 'amicable' divorces.
Unfortunately, not all are amicable and it does go to trial where assets are split 50/50 and custody is typically joint, with parenting time/support payments being the only major issue. Now, battles can occur over individual pieces of property but a judge will come down with an order if the parties cannot agree amongst themselves.
And, for custody/child support, the state has finally awakened to the plight of fathers being given the shaft. In many cases in the past, the father might have had the children for equal time each month yet had to pay an inordinately high amount of money each month to the mother. It was based on 'disparity in income'. So, if the father earned 85% of the family's income and the wife only 15%, the father's child support payments would follow some chart for monthly costs of child-raising and he would pay 85% of that. Trouble with that is, well, if the father had the children 50% of the time, he was paying more than need be to the mother (he was paying 85% of the monthly costs yet the mother only had them 50% of the month).
That's changed this year and the chart used by the state has been modified to account for parenting time.
In order to get 'sole custody', one party has to prove, pretty much, that the children's lives were in jeopardy. One of the parents would have to be doing drugs in front of the kids, leaving them unattended for days, not keeping them in school, physically abusing them, etc. Needless to say, sole custody is a rare judgment. However, parenting time can be fought for in front of the judge by proving the needs of the children are best met with one parent or the other. Thus, joint custody is almost always awarded (also meaning one parent cannot leave the county/state w/o consent of the other parent) but parenting time is adjusted.
So, this helped me out a lot in my case. I have my daughters every other week and pay nothing in maintenance and very little in child support compared what I would have had to pay just a few yrs ago (when we were divorcing at one point - later got back together and went to counseling but it still ended up failing...divorce was final in Feb.)
Also, the courts order a counseling sessions (usually for 2 hrs on consecutive Saturdays) that is mostly for the kids but lets the parents air their frustrations and feelings.
Unfortunately, not all are amicable and it does go to trial where assets are split 50/50 and custody is typically joint, with parenting time/support payments being the only major issue. Now, battles can occur over individual pieces of property but a judge will come down with an order if the parties cannot agree amongst themselves.
And, for custody/child support, the state has finally awakened to the plight of fathers being given the shaft. In many cases in the past, the father might have had the children for equal time each month yet had to pay an inordinately high amount of money each month to the mother. It was based on 'disparity in income'. So, if the father earned 85% of the family's income and the wife only 15%, the father's child support payments would follow some chart for monthly costs of child-raising and he would pay 85% of that. Trouble with that is, well, if the father had the children 50% of the time, he was paying more than need be to the mother (he was paying 85% of the monthly costs yet the mother only had them 50% of the month).
That's changed this year and the chart used by the state has been modified to account for parenting time.
In order to get 'sole custody', one party has to prove, pretty much, that the children's lives were in jeopardy. One of the parents would have to be doing drugs in front of the kids, leaving them unattended for days, not keeping them in school, physically abusing them, etc. Needless to say, sole custody is a rare judgment. However, parenting time can be fought for in front of the judge by proving the needs of the children are best met with one parent or the other. Thus, joint custody is almost always awarded (also meaning one parent cannot leave the county/state w/o consent of the other parent) but parenting time is adjusted.
So, this helped me out a lot in my case. I have my daughters every other week and pay nothing in maintenance and very little in child support compared what I would have had to pay just a few yrs ago (when we were divorcing at one point - later got back together and went to counseling but it still ended up failing...divorce was final in Feb.)
Also, the courts order a counseling sessions (usually for 2 hrs on consecutive Saturdays) that is mostly for the kids but lets the parents air their frustrations and feelings.
The woman can even say He's Hit me before. The real reason why the loser moms want custody is because they get more money from the husbands to spend on themselves and not the children.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter