Divorce: It's not whether you fight, but how you fight
 

I found this interesting

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/2...how-you-fight/

I wonder what their hypothesis was for this study. It seems to me that the figures posit normal and predictable male to female and female to male behaviour, and the outcomes of those behaviours seem to be fairly predictable too.

I've never been married (Thank God), so, I've never been divorced (Thank God). BUT: If I were to experience divorce, I think I would go with the 'scorched earth' policy.

not a good idea if there are kids involved

With kids, its a really BAD idea. No matter what happens in the marriage, you are BOTH still their parents. It is extremely important to be aware of how both of you interact and deal with the mess you created.

One of the most selfish things one can do is go through a divorce badly, when there are kids involved. (With no kids involved it's just crybaby behavior: no better character involved it's just there is less outside damage.)

But you see it all the time: nanny nanny boo boo, my ex-wife this, my ex-husband this. Playing games and bitching and moaning, don't fool yourself if you think your kids can't see it.

Suck it up and be an adult. This, however, is the exception and not the rule. Most went into this with the pie-in-the-sky hopes and can't believe it that there's a possiblity that the 25 grand wedding and the picket fence aren't enough to sustain those youthful, if unrealistic, delusions of grand love.

My grandma and grandpa got divorced when hardly anyone did. My mom says that after that, they never fought. They got along and never once hurt her to hurt the one they divorced.

A lot of people are way more selfish than that.

Perhaps thre wouldn't be so much animosity if the law, and process, were more fair.

I've seen messy divorces and really civilized divorces.

My brother got divorced. Both he and his ex are still friends, both got remarried, and the two married couples and all the kids and step kids have vacationed together multiple times. I've seen my brother's ex-wife's new husband at a couple of my family gatherings. Nice guy.

On the other end of the spectrum, a female friend married an idiot. They ended up divorcing, and he moved away. Had no intention of spending time with the kids. Bought a new car instead of paying child support. She had him thrown in jail for not paying. I don't like the guy, and think he's a tool, but I thought the US didn't have debtors prisons. Apparently it does, when it comes to child support.

More fair to men? Sure! It's those women who give the rest of us a bad name: "What can I TAKE from him to show him how much I hurt?" It's pretty sick, imho, and I have no respect for that shit either. There are a lot of gold-diggin' bitches out there: don't be so swayed by a pretty face or a good lay or nice tits. I see that all the time, too.

It certainly does, glatt. If you don't pay support, you get locked up until you do. But if you're locked up, how do you get the money to pay?
Contempt of court, and failure to pay support, even if you don't have it to pay, are the only two indefinite prison terms I know of.

Very true, xoB. Thats a vicious cycle. It starts with the batting eyelashes and "poor me" in court which leads to some unrealistic support amount.
That is many times followed by the inability to pay, leading to more court time and atty fees... then a sentence, loss of income due to incarceration, loss of job, loss loss loss... no one wins - most importantly the kids.

Glass houses and stones. They don't mix.

In this guy's case, he borrowed money from his parents (the kids' grandparents) to pay what he owed, and he ended up only spending a weekend in jail. But he's a regular guy. Not a thug. He didn't belong in a cell at all. If he has money, the court should have the authority to seize bank accounts but jail seems like overkill to me.

Anyway, it's a textbook example of how not to do it. The woman had to spend money to pay a lawyer to get the dad thrown in to jail so he could borrow money to give to the woman to feed their kids. It shouldn't be that way.

Divorce is expensive. If this couple had His $ + Her $ to pay for one household when they were married, and then after the divorce they are spending His $ + Her $ to pay for two households and legal fees, there is clearly not going to be enough money to go around for anyone. Even if it's divided evenly, everyone loses out.

So true. Talk about a system that needs overhauled. NO ONE, male or female, should get to throw their whiny cards to get revenge.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Or how about: each person has to show they are more than capable of making a living and supporting their children on their own, should the time present itself. Also, each person must write an essay about one unselfish act they've committed in their lifetime.

I worked with a guy, years ago, that the court said pay the ex $95 a week. His take home pay was $94.50. They came and dragged him out of work, a lot.

Geez. See, that makes no sense to me.

I wonder, too, if it's like a lot of things: back in the day perhaps some laws were needed to protect the children from the deadbeats...but it went way far the other way and common sense went right out the window. It's kind of like unions (see what I did thar? Unions? Union?)

Then you have alimony! WTF is alimony? You want to live in the manner to which you've become accustomed? Then get a fucking job, this isn't 1850 anymore.
:lol:


I don't know. Kids aren't weapons, that's all I really know. :(

Thats my point - don't make it any worse by using every single thing as a weapon. There really are clear winners in every divorce though - the lawyers who drag shit out and bill by the hour.

When I got divorced, I was the only income. (One of the reasons for the divorce)
There was a large lump sum payout to settle all the crap at once, avoid multiple court dates, additional atty fees... and save our kids from being dragged into court as "witnesses" (WTF?!?!?!?!) ANYWAY.
That money was blown inside of a year and right back to court I went...
Can't win even when you lose. Oh, and I'm still paying that loan off... :mad:

You know whats worse, at least here, when you get a divorce there's no law governing how it'll work. The county divorce lawyers and judges get together and decide how it will work in that county. Hello, they make it up! You don't suppose the rules they make up would happen to maximize profits do you?

Amen sistah...ahem, I mean brothuh.

It gets even better. If one spouse is unhappy with the ruling, they can move to another county and start the process all over again with the laws in the new county. :yelsick:

(totally effed up)

Moan. Groan.

It's not going to change. People are for the most part basically selfish and dumb. Finger pointing and being right and winning have always been more important than any unselfish outcome (for most) no matter what it is you're talking about.

Not me, not at all... I was just sharing something I learned a couple weeks ago.
I had no idea that after the courts decide and the situation is settled that one party can just move and try it all again.

I didn't know that either. How can that be? Ugh...bad situation.

I think that one thing that ofter gets overlooked by non-custodial parents who have to pay child support is that the costs of looking after those children often increases after the divorce. So maybe a guy who earns $95 a week only used to have to pay $65 of that to support his kids Maybe his wife paid some too. They split, but suddenly the grocery bill goes up per person because the family is buying in smaller quantities, the utilities bills do not change even though his body is not longer there to be heated, and in all likelihood, childcare and take-out costs will either go up or her income will go down because it's much harder to juggle the kids' sick days and doctors' appointments and school activities when there's only one person available to deal with it.

And yes, the kids do understand it.

Not always applicable - still some single income households out there. Many want one parent home to actually raise their own children.
What about typically the woman, who agreed to forgo a career to raise the kids and then for whatever reason, gets divorced. Isn't it only fair to receive some compensation until such time as she can perhaps get educated and or trained in some way to make a living and support herself and the kids? To expect someone to become instantly self-reliant isn't realistic - IMO.

As to the first point: It IS relevant if, in the case of tragedy, you can't, or won't, do ANYTHING. I'll let you in on a secret you may already know: human beings are very resilient. My grandmother worked her full time job in a machine shop (making very little) and took in laundry to make ends meet. They were barely scraping by, but they did scrape by.

As to the second: bullshit. Everyone can do something besides spread their legs (or seep sperm.) If they can't they might reconsider adding to the population. Get educated before daddy spends 25 grand on your wedding.

Can't have it both ways: you either abhor users or you don't. YOu either dislike the "eye-batters" or you will fight for their cause until the bitter end. You either support the welfare system in all its faults precisely BECAUSE of the cause you just popped onto, or you think EVERYONE should use their bootstraps.

Or, you can change your viewpoints to cause fights or gain recognition.

Let me add:

Kids are not weapons. Kids are not trophies either.

nah, but they are pretty awesome.

I think classics point is dead on, shaw. You seem to be carrying some other fight into this thread. This is kind of a touchy subject for me.... but...

alimony is not welfare. I can't really improve on classic's point. Nor do I feel comfortable elaborating. Just, don't be so hasty to judge with such a broad brush, please. You never know who you're offending.... especially with something like this.

@ glatt:

I agree! Which is precisely the point of my first post in this thread, which got twisted by the twister, as usual.

I love children. Do not think that my lack of them makes me freaking Witchie-poo or something. ;)

That is a forever untold story.

@ jim: I respectfully disagree, but let me elaborate. AGREED upon alimony is one thing: taking people to court to destroy them and take all you can is the work of a bad human being.

Sorry if I offended...my brush isn't nearly as broad as it seems post by post. A whole picture thing works better with me, as I don't change on whims.

If there is personal stuff in MY posts, so be it. Just as the personal creeps into your posts and classic's posts and anyone's posts. Difference being: I think you, jim, are a pretty good person...and certainly don't think you bad because you don't fit into the nutshells.

Sorry all.

i was actually referring to your comments regarding alimony.

Which, when pressed, I elaborated upon.

sorry... posts are coming too fast. i didn't see your directive @'s when i posted. did they get edited in after for clarity?

I apologize for inferring that you are quick to judge people.

I'm going to duck out now before you two get blood on me. ;) love you guys!

I am probably quick to judge, here on these boards, where it all comes out in black and white.

What I judge are people who behave a certain way as a whole. What I should judge are individual actions. When I condemn a certain "action" of course it blankets everything, because it would be impossible to then list all of the ways in which this or that doesn't apply.

What you should know about me is that I am really a kind person. With all my barking I have no real bite. What I know about individuals, and how they treat me and those around them, is how I interact with others in this life. I am kind to the point that I am the one who gets used, and I am the one who gets stepped all over. All I can keep in my heart is that the shame is not on me...I've only tried my best. In the cellar, no one can hear you cry. ;)

To this point, I've recently given up on the idea that the world is inherently a good place. I've given up on believing that being good is enough, and finding that being bad and hard-hearted is the only way to live through it. However, as bad as I try to be...it doesn't stick. Therefore, the ideas of love and marriage have to be thought of in more practical terms, and the only conclusion that I can come to is we leave this world as we entered it...completely alone. I just try to keep the collateral damage to a minimum.

This should be in another thread, don't know what, but I felt it time to give myself some support, and this is where it bubbled over. I think I need another break.

And please oh please don't discount my sense of humor, which goes over like a lead balloon here but will one day make me rich and famous. Ha!

(Oh, and i did edit in the @'s. Sorry.)

(Here is where you point and laugh at the crazy emotional human woman.)

I find lead balloons hilarious. unless they land on my toes.

THAT would have been a much better reply - just agree with the few exceptions that were brought up or whatever. I specifically tried to keep my reply on subject and NOT ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY. I wasn't trying to condemn you. Just raising the issue of where I think alimony IS appropriate.

Even if someone has gotten themself qualified for something (educated) prior to marriage and kids, a lot of the time, those qualifications just aren't significant after perhaps 10 or even 20 years of marriage.

We don't really have a provision for alimony over here (although so people are awarded certain amounts considered to be over and above what might be for the kids), but we do have a much better social support system as far as making sure everyone has an opportunity to get back on their feet without having to suffer too much. The non custodial parent is required to pay child support though, and if they have troubles handing it over, wages are garnished and so forth.

So how is your tax system set up?

Oh much differently to yours. :)

We don't get to keep the money we earn here. ;)

True

PA doesn't have alimony, as some states do, but there is a provision for support during a court approved training/schooling plan, to reenter the workforce. However, even that's irksome when she's living with her paramour, more so when you're supporting them both.:mad:
Same here.

I think that's the kind of thing I was referring to. When my mouth gets going I must remember that the 'people' I'm criticizing are often caricatures of the ones who do those sorts of things that are just not right.

I get jaded, in this profession, and it's good for me to take a step back and remember the people who aren't doing the bad things.

So, I will even admit that classic was right: a better response would have been to talk about those who are doing the deeds, and not lumping everyone else in, in the process.

My apologies again if I offended anyone. I should know as well as anyone that it's the bad apples that make the bunch look bad...but the bad apples end up being cider in the long run, anyway.

Just clarifying - well trying to anyway.
Oh and I voluntarily paid it a few years ago for a bit.
Thats what made me the most angry. The money was for her to provide for her and the kids (Alimony & child support) When I ofund out she was wining and dining with her new man while the kids were home alone ... or worse. :mad2: I did a little investigating, collected information, filed and it ended...

We both tend to do this.

:)

Whew. Good. I am glad we came to an agreement.

I think you just used up your BONUS TRICK

Now you're back to Shawnee sexual innuendo. ;)

You know I save all my uendos for you, spexx. :rolleyes:

Just to bring this full circle - Think of the kids and if you know someone going through a divorce remind them - especially when they are stuck in the hatred and emotionally charged SHIT that a divorce normally becomes.

It's not automatic indefinite support, as in alimony states.
PA takes it on a case by case basis. If she's working, no. If she's in school, or needs to be, in order to get a job, yes, but only until she's able to support herself. If she's disabled, or has pre-school kids, probably, until the situation changes.

Note: I used "she" because 99.9% of the time that's the case, but it can be the other way around.

Yep - like I said - and the link is there as well.

This is probably crazy talk, but with all the things they try to teach in school: singles living, family living, finances, cooking...etc, how about planning an exit strategy before you get married? I'm not being facetious: no one believes that their true love won't last forever, but if faced with "IF it does end, what WILL YOU DO" it takes some of that unrealistic fantasy crap out of it. No one wants to deal with that negative thinking, but that negative is too often the reality.

We all know about 1 in 2 marriages: none of us think it will be us (unless you're a serial monogamist who's been married 6 times, like one of my friends..which boggles my mind.)

(I think I just came up with my book and subsequent book tour.)

Isn't that whats called a prenuptial agreement?

That's financial. I think Shaw is recommending a class where you discuss "how will you act when you are going through a divorce and have kids?"

An "exit strategy" not "here's what'll happen to the house and money." An all-encompassing dealing with reality which includes what spexx said. Further, people in their "salad days" just getting started out rarely have a trust fund to worry about being pilfered. It's all salad and love and high hopes.

Lettuce not go there.;)

Well that would certainly keep a lot less people from getting married in the first place.
lol

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

I'm sure it would be a good thing.

I've decided. It would not be a bad thing.