Reggie Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Sally, you should really consult a lawyer if you want to explore divorce. Inmost states I know of,the oreder of filing hs no impact on anything of substance in a settlement or adjudication. Think about it, It simply does not make any sense that it would. The main bones of contention ina divorce are custody and valuation of assets. Most of the law is statutory and not subject to deviation. I suppose alimony is also an issue, but , again, I do not believe the order of filing plays any role in the law on this, at least as far as I know. You need to consult someone on this, if the need arises, as you seem to be operating under a serious misconception. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Sally, you should really consult a lawyer if you want to explore divorce. Inmost states I know of,the oreder of filing hs no impact on anything of substance in a settlement or adjudication. Think about it, It simply does not make any sense that it would. The main bones of contention ina divorce are custody and valuation of assets. Most of the law is statutory and not subject to deviation. I suppose alimony is also an issue, but , again, I do not believe the order of filing plays any role in the law on this, at least as far as I know. You need to consult someone on this, if the need arises, as you seem to be operating under a serious misconception. I am not interested in divorce. I am already divorced. I did speak to a lawyer about something someone else posts on here all the time in regards to the whole "walk away wife" theory as to why more women file for divorce. I was told that women file more often because they get "check mated" into it. If they were filing for nothing more than selfish reasoning, they wouldn't file at all. A women gets a better deal with the division of assets if the man is the one filing. What the lawyer called "check mating" is when one partner wants out but has been clued in about what happens if they file first. They begin to make life a misery for the other spouse till the other spouse's quality of life is so low that the loss of money and assents no longer make up for it. Then the wife files to ease her misery. He says men are better able to do this because they are able to keep their personal opinion of themselves seperate from their actions. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 You're still deliberately missing the point. Clearly I can't explain something to someone who simply REFUSES to attempt to see what I'm talking about. Or maybe he's just trying *help* you clarify your point to something he can't argue with? You're being gaslit!!!! This is what it looks like. This is the whole reason that most snoop to begin with. LOL Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 You're still deliberately missing the point No the point is that you can't make someone WANT to change. If they are already unhappy and want to change, you won't need tons of evidence. If you DO need the evidence to make them 'come clean' then they haven't really come clean at all, they are just doing damage control. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 No the point is that you can't make someone WANT to change. If they are already unhappy and want to change, you won't need tons of evidence. If you DO need the evidence to make them 'come clean' then they haven't really come clean at all, they are just doing damage control. Snooping isn't about making someone change. Its about getting better information, more reliable than the cheater's information. Nothing more. You don't need evidence to make someone come clean. You need evidence for your own sanity. You need evidence so that you can make your own plans. Sometimes the evidence gathered determines the course of action that the betrayed takes next. Some reconcile, some don't. Its just more information to help aid in decision making, IMO. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Reggie Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 No the point is that you can't make someone WANT to change. If they are already unhappy and want to change, you won't need tons of evidence. If you DO need the evidence to make them 'come clean' then they haven't really come clean at all, they are just doing damage control. This is not to make them change or come clean. It is info gathering needed to make a decision. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 This is not to make them change or come clean. It is info gathering needed to make a decision. Snooping isn't about making someone change. ...... Its just more information to help aid in decision making, IMO. This is the first post. Feel free to argue that point with the OP and get back to me when you all decide what it's about. Okay, for all you BSs out there looking to recover your marriage, Link to post Share on other sites
Reggie Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I am not interested in divorce. I am already divorced. I did speak to a lawyer about something someone else posts on here all the time in regards to the whole "walk away wife" theory as to why more women file for divorce. I was told that women file more often because they get "check mated" into it. If they were filing for nothing more than selfish reasoning, they wouldn't file at all. A women gets a better deal with the division of assets if the man is the one filing. What the lawyer called "check mating" is when one partner wants out but has been clued in about what happens if they file first. They begin to make life a misery for the other spouse till the other spouse's quality of life is so low that the loss of money and assents no longer make up for it. Then the wife files to ease her misery. He says men are better able to do this because they are able to keep their personal opinion of themselves seperate from their actions. I am very skeptical re the advice you received on the effect of filing first. The order of filing makes no difference as far as I know. I'd get a second opinion. The law, generally, is based on common sense and giving any weight to the order of filing is completly irrational. Link to post Share on other sites
Reggie Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Theoretically, uncovering evidence could be a the first step in recovery. After all, one needs to know if there is cheating go on in order to decide what actions to take. But, the mere discovery won't make a WS change and it certainly will not doom a BS to a life as a marital prison guard. Those things are personal choices. I think DNUI should have also preface it with "or if you want info in order to get out with knowledge of what actually went on". Link to post Share on other sites
Juniper22 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I'm not sure why some of you are continuing to try and prove your point to someone who seems to already have their mind made up on all of this anyway. Why go around and around about it and make yourself dizzy over it. Maybe stop feeding them the arguement they want to have. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I am very skeptical re the advice you received on the effect of filing first. The order of filing makes no difference as far as I know. I'd get a second opinion. The law, generally, is based on common sense and giving any weight to the order of filing is completly irrational. Please don't worry; I wasn't paying for it. It was just conversation and not some legal action I was seeking. I'm not sure why I'd need a second opinion about a friendly conversation I had with someone who practices divorce law. Thanks for your concern tho. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Theoretically, uncovering evidence could be a the first step in recovery. So maybe it is about trying to make them change after all. Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 So maybe it is about trying to make them change after all. How is someone uncovering the truth or getting evidence for something they may not be sure about, trying to change someone? Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 How is someone uncovering the truth or getting evidence for something they may not be sure about, trying to change someone? Looking for evidence of bad behavior so one can decide to terminate the relationship is understandable; I think a lot of people consider it. Seeking proof of wrongdoing with the goal of a confrontation and potential coercion into better behavior is pathetic. Link to post Share on other sites
Owl Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Looking for evidence of bad behavior so one can decide to terminate the relationship is understandable; I think a lot of people consider it. Seeking proof of wrongdoing with the goal of a confrontation and potential coercion into better behavior is pathetic. Again...PATHETIC? Have you raised children? If so, how did you teach them not to engage in activities that hurt others without pointing out to them that they were doing something wrong? Have you never confronted someone who deliberately and intentionally did something intended to hurt or slight you? Or do you just glide through life avoiding any conflict whatsoever? Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Have you raised children? Do you date children? Link to post Share on other sites
michelangelo Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nothing to add but this. Confronting a very good deceiver and liar about their infidelity is so very difficult. Having proof is empowering. Bluffing that you know even more is a useful tool for disclosure. And as for what's the point? To live one's life knowing the truth is something both parties in a marriage should have as a right. Dealing with the truth is not a privilege to be doled out by a cheater. I hadn't taken any offense to your post, Sally...simply responded back with a situation that was very relevent to your question. I didn't take it as an attack or judgement, by any means, and I apologize if my response made you feel that way at all. The "what if" that I posed was directly related to the entire reason behind this thread...that "snooping" is often REQUIRED for a BS to get the truth of the situation, so that it can be addressed. If you've never been there, it's really hard for you to consider what you may or may not do...most of us who HAVE been here probably didn't do what we THOUGHT we would when we got here...I know that I surely didn't. At the end of it all...the "snooping" gets you the truth. Yes, it does get it to you sooner, and usually in far more detail than you're ever likely to get from a cheating spouse otherwise. The "damage" done to your relationship by the snooping is nearly always inconsequential compared to the damage done by the infidelity itself. It becomes little more than a "footnote" in the scheme of things. The snooping in MY case was to let me clearly understand what was going on...the depth and nature of the relationship between my W and the OM. I SUSPECTED what it might be, but of course was lied to by my wife while it was ongoing...and that's a NORMAL response for someone who IS cheating. I didn't do it with any intent to "use it" legally. From what I've seen here and on other forums, it rarely IS usable in any fashion legally. It's most commonly used to get information about the state of the marriage that is otherwise denied to the BS...and they typically use that information to decide their next steps...attempted reconciliation or divorce. Does that help clear up any of your questions? Link to post Share on other sites
Owl Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Do you date children? No...and how is that in any way relevent to my questions to you? Again...how do you survive life without confronting someone? Have you never needed proof for a confrontation at all? Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Do you date children? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Owl Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Proof is ESSENTIAL to get the truth out in the open. Knowing all the relevent information is key to making an informed choice. That's what this thread is all about. Nothing "pathetic" about it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
OpenBook Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 No...and how is that in any way relevent to my questions to you? Well THAT went right over your head!! Link to post Share on other sites
JackJack Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Proof is ESSENTIAL to get the truth out in the open. Knowing all the relevent information is key to making an informed choice. That's what this thread is all about. Nothing "pathetic" about it. I agree. maybe the reference of dating children, came from they feel if someone has to get evidence or to "police" their spouse, its treating them like a child? Link to post Share on other sites
michelangelo Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 They know ultimately they will be pulled over and busted, but they drift aimlessly down the highway instead of just pulling over. And since they already know they are pathetic, they even keep the affair going since they already know they will be in a world of trouble once they "pull over and stop the Bronco." My wife was like that. She told herself all kinds of stories to convince herself to not both stop the affair or reveal it to me--despite my accusations (which were spot on). Some days it was so draining I feel it would have been quicker to hang her by her thumbs over a railing of a tall building to get her to admit the truth than the insane truth dribbling exercise I had to deal with. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Again...how do you survive life without confronting someone? Have you never needed proof for a confrontation at all? I have to deal with asshats in life, but I don't get romantically involved with that sort of person. Link to post Share on other sites
Owl Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I have to deal with asshats in life, but I don't get romantically involved with that sort of person. As far as you know. But how do you know that the person you married today won't do an "a$$hat" action 17 years down the road? You don't. And YOU might well choose to simply walk-away and end the marriage if you were to find yourself in that situation...and there's nothing wrong with that choice, if it's what works for you. But calling the actions of others who try to save their marriage "pathetic" is...well...kind of a$$hat, you know? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts