Many men fear being taken to the cleaners in divorce. Some so much so,

[worlybear]

It sounds sexist to say that men get the short end of the stick more often than not in divorce...

 

...but it does seem that way.

Have to disagree here- please see my thread in "coping.":sick:

[threebyfate]

According to my state statutes we are not common-law and have made sure to keep it this way. We both consulted with attorneys in order to keep us not common-law.

 

My SO also agreed not to be on baby's BC before she was ever created. I would never put anyone through the hell of custody fights and state ordered child support. If we split, we split. We agreed to a "plan of action" before she was ever created about what we would do in the event that we did not want to be together.

A paternity test could still create a custody battle if he has a change of heart.

[SummersEve]

Their fear is well justified however having children without being married is not any better. You still end up paying for an ex and children you don't see. The family courts are completely biased against men.

 

Yes that's how bad it has got.

 

Oh and you can blame 40+ years of radical feminism.

 

No, he pays PART of his children's upkeep, he does not pay for his ex. Alimony went out decades ago, it's not true. Right, and everybody knows that being a single woman with children is just a day in the park! What will those radical feminists come up with next.

 

I can see this will be another babbling thread where women are attacked with a bunch of generalized, idiotic statements.

 

*Anyone, will the moderators step in on this or do they just get to to on and on with these retarded misogynist rants?

[sally4sara]

No one ever likes hearing why more women get custody of the kids.

 

Its because men don't commonly try for primary custody. The person who was the more hands on caregiver during the marriage is usually the one who continues being so after a divorce. One would think feminism made it more acceptable for men to be a caregiver to their children and therefore be more able to go for primary custody in a divorce, but no, most still do not try for primary custody. Go a head and ask the next guy who bitches about his ex wife having custody of the kids - you will find they didn't even try for primary custody. They will have all kinds of excuses for why they didn't because it won't garner your sympathy to admit they didn't want to step into a role they didn't have before the divorce.

 

Not sure how that's the fault of feminism. Seems to me a simple echo of the past BEFORE feminism.

[willowthewisp]

and what if he wants proof of that honour from you in return? what if he wants proof that you want him for him. would you sign a prenup?

 

probably not, but what assurances does the guy have?

 

Well Memphis I have pesonal knowledge of what happens when a guy does not honour you. What assurances does he have I am not after his money? First, my realtionship history clearly shows I am capable of a committed relationship, 20 years and I was not the one who left. Secondly, I am a qualifying as a lawyer , I make my own money. Thirdly, I am not that kind of women and if he can't see that then he doesn't deserve me and no, if a guy asked me to sign a pre-nup I would not marry him for the reason that the very suggestion is an insult to my integrity.

 

Besides it is not as black and white as that. What if I were to give up my career to raise his children? Should I get nothing when he trades me in for a younger model? A prenup is insulting for that very reason, it assumes that it is the women who will walk away. Many women have property to stand to lose as well, it works both ways.

 

In addition, pre-nups do not hold water in the UK, nor do women in the UK recieve alimony, the only case where that ever gets paid is when the wife or husband is physically disabled or ill and unable to work on a permanant basis. So, certainly in the UK the laws pertain to the wellbeing of the children ONLY.

 

Woggle, I have spent many days in family court, I don't know what it is like in the US, but certainly here in the UK the law looks to the welfare of the children not women over men.

 

The problems for women and children arise when they have not married. In these cases not only does the women have no right or limited rights depending on trust law, to any property, the father of the children has no right to see his children either unless he has previously applied for parental responsibility. Think of it as the laws way of ensuring that men take responsibility for their families by marrying the mother of their children so that in the event that he leaves and she has postponed her career and ability to make her own money in order to raise his children, both her and the children are protected.

 

The question to ask yourself is "WHY is the law as it is?"

 

Come on guys, whilst there may be women out there who are golddiggers most cases where a women is awarded alimony reflect the fact that she has been a stay a home mom, housekeeper etc, she has postponed her career for yours. It works the other way around as well, if the father is the stay at home dad then he gets it too.

[tinktronik]

A paternity test could still create a custody battle if he has a change of heart.

 

The state will not consent to a paternity test on the potential father's say without the mother's acknowledgment that there is a chance he is the father, at least not in the state I reside. And they will not acknowledge an outside lab's proof of paternity even if the "potential father" were to have that proof on hand. I've solidly done my homework here. Not fair but that's the way it works in some states.

[TheLoneSock]

The state will not consent to a paternity test on the potential father's say without the mother's acknowledgment that there is a chance he is the father, at least not in the state I reside. And they will not acknowledge an outside lab's proof of paternity even if the "potential father" were to have that proof on hand. I've solidly done my homework here. Not fair but that's the way it works in some states.

 

What state are you in, if I may ask?

 

I don't think I'd ever want to live there. Their rules sound absurd.

[carhill]

that they dont get married to begin with and prefer having children and a family without signing marriage papers.

 

Do you think their fear of divorce is justified or exaggerated ?

Just finished up a divorce. Cost me about 20% of my net worth, meaning what I was worth prior to being married. I overcame my fear. No future marriage will be without a prenup. Wouldn't want a monied woman to think I'm trying to re-gain what my exW took. Personally, I won't live with a woman without being married. Too many ambiguities. YMMV

[threebyfate]

The state will not consent to a paternity test on the potential father's say without the mother's acknowledgment that there is a chance he is the father, at least not in the state I reside. And they will not acknowledge an outside lab's proof of paternity even if the "potential father" were to have that proof on hand. I've solidly done my homework here. Not fair but that's the way it works in some states.

Thought the court has the ability to order DNA testing with either parent if one parent sues for custody.

 

Here's an example from Colorado:

 

http://www.paternitynet.com/art03.html

 

Colorado law provides that, in any action or proceeding where paternity is at issue, the court may, at the request of either party or on its own accord, require the child, mother and the man to submit to appropriate parentage tests including genetic (DNA) testing. A laboratory accredited by the secretary of the federal Department of Health and Human Services must conduct such testing.

[TheLoneSock]

Personally, I won't live with a woman without being married. Too many ambiguities. YMMV

 

What is the wisdom behind this carhill? I've felt that it's important to live with a girl for a while before marriage, especially since I am young. My faith would guide me to not live with a woman before marriage, but I still have a difficult time grasping the plausibility of that.

[tinktronik]

What state are you in, if I may ask?

 

I don't think I'd ever want to live there. Their rules sound absurd.

 

I do think the existing laws are absurd but also understand that they are the same in other states as well. Many states give father's 30 days to get themselves put onto a BC or it's up to mom to name the father. We had a poster here a while ago that was completely out of luck when he found out a few years down the road that a child was his and the mom refused to say so.

 

My SO and I have a pretty strong, long-term relationship and have made decisions based on his ability to care for a child alone upon my death and his ability to provide emotional support versus financial support without me stabilizing the family. Also based upon both of our past experiences in divorce and child custody disputes with ex's. We decided for us this was the best way, to be unmarried and to have one parent of our child named and one un-named.

 

I don't think the way the law is set up is fair either.

[tinktronik]

Thought the court has the ability to order DNA testing with either parent if one parent sues for custody.

 

Here's an example from Colorado:

 

http://www.paternitynet.com/art03.html

 

Our attorney has advised that my SO has 30 days to establish paternity, should he choose to do so, otherwise I can deny him as the father and the courts will not force me to submit my child to a paternity test. I have NO intention of disallowing him any contact with his child BTW. This is the way my SO wants it as well.

[TheLoneSock]

I do think the existing laws are absurd but also understand that they are the same in other states as well. Many states give father's 30 days to get themselves put onto a BC or it's up to mom to name the father. We had a poster here a while ago that was completely out of luck when he found out a few years down the road that a child was his and the mom refused to say so.

 

My SO and I have a pretty strong, long-term relationship and have made decisions based on his ability to care for a child alone upon my death and his ability to provide emotional support versus financial support without me stabilizing the family. Also based upon both of our past experiences in divorce and child custody disputes with ex's. We decided for us this was the best way, to be unmarried and to have one parent of our child named and one un-named.

 

I don't think the way the law is set up is fair either.

 

So... you're not going to tell me which state you live in? Lol

[carhill]

What is the wisdom behind this carhill?

For myself, two reasons:

Because my business and real estate holdings combine with my residence, I don't wish another person whom I'm not legally married to occupying the premises.

 

I'm 'old-fashioned' and don't believe in cohabitation. Other than when married, I've always lived alone. Never rented, never had roommates. I like it that way.

 

Most women my age have no issues with that. They like their independence. Another aspect of compatibility

[worlybear]

Our attorney has advised that my SO has 30 days to establish paternity, should he choose to do so, otherwise I can deny him as the father and the courts will not force me to submit my child to a paternity test. I have NO intention of disallowing him any contact with his child BTW. This is the way my SO wants it as well.

Not trying to be funny here but you only have to look at these boards to see how often people change their minds about rock-solid agreements that seemed , at the time, to be "set in stone."

What then?

[TheLoneSock]

I'm 'old-fashioned' and don't believe in cohabitation.

 

Do you feel like there is merit or longevity to be gained from this, or is it just one of those core beliefs you'd rather not have to explain? I ask out of genuine curiosity, because I have lived with (2) girlfriends in the past - it didn't work out in the end with either of them but I'm not so sure cohabitation hurt our chances. Maybe I am wrong.

[tinktronik]

Not trying to be funny here but you only have to look at these boards to see how often people change their minds about rock-solid agreements that seemed , at the time, to be "set in stone."

What then?

 

Hypothetically, if within 30 days of baby's birth my SO were to decide to establish his paternity and we were to split I would have no choice but to submit baby to a blood test. That's what the law stipulates.

 

However, based on some things having to do with SO's health there is no way he would be made primary custodian. We would have to iron out any kinks with visitation and he would have the state up his behind by his choice after him for monetary support, not by mine. I know my word is good always and what I would and would not do in the future; what he decides is up to him.

 

But regardless, because of the state's involvement in marital decisions, I would not marry again. I believe my SO waffles a bit on his intent to not marry again because of his age versus mine (he is older than me and was raised in a very traditional home) with a child coming to be. However, almost all of the time b/c of our past histories in divorce involved with children we agree marriage is a bad idea. We both happen to feel that state involvement made it more difficult to meander the dissolution of our marriages and work out relationships with our children that really were in their best interests.

 

I wanted to add really quickly that the family laws are slowly changing in some of the more progressive states. There are some states that advocate for 50-50 custody and see a father's presence in their life as something other than a paycheck to provide stability in the mother's home. IMO this is a huge step forward and one children sorely need.

[threebyfate]

tink, I don't want to annoy you but the 30 days doesn't sound right since it sounds unconstitutional so I did a bit more searching:

 

Lawsuit to establish paternity may be brought at any time until the child attains majority (18th birthday). CRS 19-4-107(1)(a). CRS 19-4-108

 

http://www.gustafsonlaw.com/Family-Paternity.htm#Paternity-6

 

Bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer. I just think this is important enough so you go into it with all your ducks in a row.

[tinktronik]

tink, I don't want to annoy you but the 30 days doesn't sound right since it sounds unconstitutional so I did a bit more searching:

 

 

 

http://www.gustafsonlaw.com/Family-Paternity.htm#Paternity-6

 

Bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer. I just think this is important enough so you go into it with all your ducks in a row.

 

All I can go by is what the attorney I have seen has told me. I'm told 30 days, I could certainly ask again though. The way he explained it made sense.

 

I will add the atty did tell us that in certain special cases the courts will allow a father 2 years to petition for his rights, but that we did not meet that criteria.

 

In either event, I strongly believe that my SO does not want to get our child or himself wrapped up in court and would not do so at any cost to himself. My SO does not believe he could raise a child by himself, and neither do I.

Edited March 30, 2011 by tinktronik

[threebyfate]

All I can go by is what the attorney I have seen has told me. I'm told 30 days, I could certainly ask again though. The way he explained it made sense.

 

I will add the atty did tell us that in certain special cases the courts will allow a father 2 years to petition for his rights, but that we did not meet that criteria.

 

In either event, I strongly believe that my SO does not want to get our child or himself wrapped up in court and would not do so at any cost to himself. My SO does not believe he could raise a child by himself, and neither do I.

You know your situation and SO better than anyone on this board, especially myself. But you also strike me as someone who wants to be informed, be it good or bad news.

 

Best wishes for your upcoming little one. It ain't easy being pregnant and not much fun. Bet you can't wait until your baby's born since the waiting seems endless. Don't know why human babies have to take so long compared to other animals. I totally can relate to the impatience, since mine is less than a year old!

[Thedude22]

I really don't understand why people need to get married. You can be monogamous and in love without a legal union. To me it's like saying "Let me prove my love to you by showing I am willing to risk half my money and a legal nightmare to be with you".

 

I'm sure a day will come when I meet a girl I love and she threatens to leave me if I don't marry her. I likely will and will take every def-comm 5 precaution I listed in my previous post. It still sucks though, I realize there are tax breaks etc. but still not worth it in my opinion.

[willowthewisp]

Do you feel like there is merit or longevity to be gained from this, or is it just one of those core beliefs you'd rather not have to explain? I ask out of genuine curiosity, because I have lived with (2) girlfriends in the past - it didn't work out in the end with either of them but I'm not so sure cohabitation hurt our chances. Maybe I am wrong.

 

One argument for cohabitation is that it allows you to see if you are compatible and can live together.

 

The counter-argument is that if you treat it as a trial run it will be. In other words all relationships take work, all relationships change, people grow and change, a lasting relationship takes work and committment, it is how you respond and deal with the incompatibilies that make for an enduring relationship. After all, no one is PERFECT for you, no one will ever be 100% compatible because we are all inperfect. Therefore, if you commit and marry rather than cohabit both are you are committed to working toegther to resolve conflicts (provided both of you believe in your vows and don't see divorce as an opition), you both do not regard the living arrangement as a trial run, it's for life, so you are more likely to put in the effort.

 

There are the two arguments, everyone forms their own opinion.

[willowthewisp]

I really don't understand why people need to get married. You can be monogamous and in love without a legal union. To me it's like saying "Let me prove my love to you by showing I am willing to risk half my money and a legal nightmare to be with you".

 

I'm sure a day will come when I meet a girl I love and she threatens to leave me if I don't marry her. I likely will and will take every def-comm 5 precaution I listed in my previous post. It still sucks though, I realize there are tax breaks etc. but still not worth it in my opinion.

 

It's saying "I commit to staying with you through the bad times as well as the good".

 

The legal nightmare is a whole lot worse if you aren't married.

[Tiberius]

Well Memphis I have pesonal knowledge of what happens when a guy does not honour you. What assurances does he have I am not after his money? First, my realtionship history clearly shows I am capable of a committed relationship, 20 years and I was not the one who left. Secondly, I am a qualifying as a lawyer , I make my own money. Thirdly, I am not that kind of women and if he can't see that then he doesn't deserve me and no, if a guy asked me to sign a pre-nup I would not marry him for the reason that the very suggestion is an insult to my integrity.

 

Besides it is not as black and white as that. What if I were to give up my career to raise his children? Should I get nothing when he trades me in for a younger model? A prenup is insulting for that very reason, it assumes that it is the women who will walk away. Many women have property to stand to lose as well, it works both ways.

 

 

Read it all again. Dont you see how marriage is a prenup that protects the woman? I am talking about modern marriage. If you got married a christian up till the 19th century it was for life, unless you got the pope to agree to a divorce. Good luck with that.

 

Today marriage is just a prenuptial agreement as stipulated in the divorce laws, nothing more, nothing less. Signed marriage papers have zero influence on your relationship as a couple, they dont force you to stick toegether when times get tough, they merely open you up to the break up rules that are divorce.

 

You say if he trades me in for a younger model, I want to be protected by the divorce laws. Well some man tell themselfs, if she wants to go find herself some day, I do not want to be exposed to the divorce laws the way they are. If a woman refuses to sign a prenup it shows that she believes the marriage is not going to last and that she will regret having signed it.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Tiberius

[willowthewisp]

Read it all again. Dont you see how marriage is a prenup that protects the woman? In divorce it works only one way and many women keep looking if they come across somebody to whom marriage would mean losing her assets in divorce.

 

And why is that do you think? Why is the law designed to protect the women? Think about it? It's laready been explained serveral times on this thread, my post included, but it seems some men just will not hear it!

 

On the second point, that is a massive generalisation based on nothing, "many" women keep looking?????????????????????????