Vent about conversation overheard

[preraph]

I was at lunch and sitting right by 4 men. I couldn't help but overhear. This is really mostly a vent about men's attitudes about divorce and child custody.

 

So I guess this guy just realized they can't stay together anymore. They're common law married. The first thing I heard was him say, Apparently when you're common-law married, you're still supposed to get a divorce.

 

Then he goes on about his plan instead, which is to just move out and have no agreements about splitting things or child support and he will just move out and she'll just have to get used to it and he feels if he goes ahead and just does it, she'll just accept it in the end. And he will just go see the child whenever he wants to. No mention here about child support or visitation schedule or anything.

 

It just made me pretty sad. I mean, I'm sorry, but you can't just walk away and keep doing things the way you want to do them when you have a kid .

 

Then he's talking about maybe living in an RV, which isn't near where they are, which is illegal. He is just trying to avoid the Court taking money for child support and just plans on not having any rules or obligations to his child but just come get her whenever he wants.

 

So immature, and this guy looked in his 40s. I hope to God his wife has the sense to not let him railroad her. He seems to think she'll just let him. Hopefully her support system will tell her otherwise.

 

Supposedly you're leaving a union so you don't have to deal as much with the person anymore, so what is the point in making it so you still have to fight every day about what is going to be happening with the child? Have the court put it down on paper and be done with fighting, for the child's sake.

 

Do you think this is the norm for men when they first decide to get out? Do they just try to slide out without any obligations until someone stops them, or is this unusual?

[Turning point]

Do you think this is the norm for men when they first decide to get out?

 

No, not at all. It's the norm for selfish a**** of both genders.

 

Compare your table of men to the stable of women who post here about how they plan to feign the marriage until the kids are grown and legal statutes for long term marriages entitle them to a larger settlement.

 

Both genders do the same thing, and whether they ditch or manipulate is a function of the socio-economic arrangement not the gender.

[Happy Lemming]

Depending on the state, when an employer hires someone new, they have to fill out some paperwork and send it in via fax or electronically with the person's social security number.

 

If there is a garnishment order in place, the employer will just garnish his wage and send the money into the enforcement agency, who will forward it to the mother. Even if he jumps from job to job, he won't be able to escape the child support enforcement agencies. There is no lag time anymore and his paycheck will be garnished.

 

He can live in tent or van - down by the river, doesn't really matter. The minute he gets a job, he will pay. Unless he works "under the table", but those jobs are rare and don't pay much.

[preraph]

Every state has a number of miles or minutes you can be away from the child if you intend to have any custody. he may not care if he has any custody or not but no mother is just going to put up with him popping in whenever he wants to.

 

Yes it's so much better for the state to get involved in the child support payments but he's planning on just slipping out and not getting a divorce and not dealing with any of that and doing whatever he wants to do. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. People who don't put that much thought into having a family going into it probably aren't going to put much thought into getting out. I just hope she goes to the court.

[amaysngrace]

He’ll probably end up telling his next woman all about what a horrible person his child’s mom is and how she won’t let him see his kid.

[Kitty Tantrum]

On the other hand, I basically ALLOWED my ex-husband to do this. Every step of the way has been him trying to weasel out of paying anything. We were properly married and got a proper divorce and the papers SAY he owes me almost a thousand dollars per month in child support. I didn't allow the state to get involved in collecting payment. He's since moved out of state, and he's probably paid about a tenth of his total obligation over the years since we split.

 

It's a financial burden for me, to be sure - but it also gives me pretty much ALL of the power, when push comes to shove. I've been VERY generous with our custody/visitation arrangement because he does love the kids (they visit him for a 4-month stretch every year since he moved away, and could go for a few short visits here and there, too, if he wanted to pay the travel expenses), but his flagrant shirking of responsibility (didn't even notify the court when he moved - so I could technically probably get him for abandonment) is my leverage. I take the responsibility, I call the shots. He doesn't get to argue with me when I say the kids will be with me next summer and he gets them for a winter visit. He knows full well that if he tries to take me court to assert his preferences, they'll nail him to the wall to the tune of ~$50k in unpaid child support.

[Mr. Lucky]

he's planning on just slipping out and not getting a divorce and not dealing with any of that and doing whatever he wants to do. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

The implementation of child support isn't necessarily tied to divorce or the "end" of a relationship.

 

Certainly agree anyone in this situation benefits from competent legal advice to understand their rights and options...

 

Mr. Lucky

[preraph]

He’ll probably end up telling his next woman all about what a horrible person his child’s mom is and how she won’t let him see his kid.

 

No doubt.

 

I will say, though, that it ought not be so expensive to get through a divorce and have the Court set the parameters. For most people, it is a huge hit financially for years to come, but if you don't do it, you just end up still overly involved with the ex and still having to negotiate everything, so you might just as well stay married. But there ought to be some better remedy for those who can't afford attorneys and especially when paying the attorneys is only going to take money away that would benefit the children themselves.

[The Outlaw]

He won't get far with it. With as much trouble as it can be, the legal way is still the best way. Trying to split without the intervention of the court will probably do more harm than good and cause more drama than it's worth.

[preraph]

I think the main thing that bothered me about what he was saying is how he was just assuming if he just did it his way despite what she wanted, she would just have to go along. Gee, wonder why you're splitting up.

[PegNosePete]

Some jurisdictions do recognise "common law" marriage (eg. certain provinces of Canada) but I've never heard of any jurisdiction that requires a divorce to end it. "Common law" marriage where it is recognised gives you certain rights but common law separation is very different (legally) to divorce. This guy just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

 

I bet this guy was just talking big to his mates, and will do none of the things he mentions. Certainly if he does, he will get a short sharp reality check.

[schlumpy]

If he was in his 20's he might be able to pull this off. I could sleep on the ground when I was 20 but not 40+. He's spent too many nights on a pillow top mattress. The RV probably sounds adventurous but they require maintenance.

 

I agree with PEGNOSE, he's talking out his hat.

 

Best Wishes

[anika99]

I wouldn't say it's the norm but sadly there are a lot of men like that guy. The one's who treat their own child like a thorn in their side and who go to great lengths to weasel out of their responsiblities. They're so selfish and self centered that they don't even try to hide their appalling behavior. They think everyone thinks like them and are oblivious to the fact that they just look like a douche bag.

[somanymistakes]

Some jurisdictions do recognise "common law" marriage (eg. certain provinces of Canada) but I've never heard of any jurisdiction that requires a divorce to end it.

 

If it's counted as a marriage then yes it can still call for a divorce.

 

However it's not a well-understood area of law, most people's ideas of how it works are highly confused, so unless someone's personally researched it, their "common sense" guesses are likely to fall short.

 

from wikipedia:

 

Dissolution (aka divorce)

Because common law marriage is merely an irregular way to contract a lawful marriage, the same formal judicial proceeding is required to dissolve it. There is no such thing as "common law divorce" because divorce never existed at common law but was created by statutory law. So although it's possible to be married by common law in nine U.S. jurisdictions, divorce must be done by statutory law in all jurisdictions.

 

In Australia they're usually called "de facto" marriages, I think, and again can come with responsibilities upon breakup.

[Woggle]

It's not right at all but when a relationship implodes like that people tend to want to bend things as much to their advantage as much as possible. Chances are he was just talking crap though. When guys get together and one of us is going through relationship drama we tend to say this stuff.